HOLLINGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



•''"'"^^i AxVD FREEDOM, WITHOt T COMPROMISE. 
E 423 - 

Copy 1 f 



.^. P. CHASE, OF (JHIO,.^^ 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH a«-7, 1850, 
On the Compromise Rssoluiions .submitted by Alt. ('lay on the '25t/i of January. 



Mr. CHASE said: 

I rise, Mr. President, with unalTected diffidence, 
to offer to the Senate my views of the important 
tjuestions presented by the resolutions of the hon- 
orable Senator from Kentucky. 

Coming from the private walks of life, witliout 
the advantage of previous public position, and 
without experience in legislative debate, I speak 
from no eminence which will entitle me to com- 
mand attention. I claim for what I say that con- 
sideration only which is due to sincerity of belief, 
to directness of purpose, and to whatever force of 
argument I may be able to bring to the support of 
my positions. 

It has been said, Mr. President, and said in a 
tone of complaint, by southern gentlemen, that 
this Government is rapidly becoming a mere Gov- 
ernment of the majority — becoming a great consol- 
idated democracy. Now, sir, if by this it be meant 
♦^af (.his Government of ours has become, or is to 
become, a' Govemne^^-S' :;^:: .i^llJ^i/^n , people, 
administered in conformity with the will of a major- 
ity of the people — if it be meant that the democratic 
principle is carried, or is likely to be carried, into 
practical application in its administration and legis- 
lation, I see in the fact, if fact it be, no ground of 
complaint, but rather ground of congratulation and 
satisfaction. Why, sir, what is this democratic 
principle? Equality of natural rights, guarantied 
and secured to all, by the laws of a just popular 
Government. For one, I desire to see that prin- 
ciple applied to every subject of legislation, no 
matter what that subject may be — to the great 
question involved in the resolutions now before 
the Senate, and to every other question. 

But our responsibilities are limited by our 
powers; and however clear it may be that we are 
bound by allegiance to democratic principle to 
condemn, to mitigate, to abolish slavery wherever 
we can constitutionally do so, it is equally clear 
that we are not bound, and that we have no right 
to interfere with slavery by legislation beyond the 
sphere of our constitutional powers. 

We have no power to legislate on the subject of 
slavery in the States. We have power to prevent 
its extension, apd to prohibit its existence within 
the sphere of the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
General Government. Our duty, therefore, is to 
abstain from interference with it in the States. It 
13 also our duty to prohibit its extension into 
national territories, and its continuance wheie we 
are constitutionally responsible for its existence. 



Such, .Mr. President, is my position; 

lat I am sustained in it 



and for 
the purpose of showing tha 
by the very highest authority, I propose to review, 
somewhat at large, the history of this Government 
in its relations to slavery. 

It was said yesterday by the honorable Senator 
from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] that the South had 
no cause of complaint against the North in regard 
to slavery until the year"l820, the date of the Mis- 
souri compromise. However that may be, we 
must go further back in time, if we wish to trace 
the controversy between slavery and freedom in 
this country to its source. We must go two hun- 
dred years further back. It was in 1620 that a 
Dutch ship ascended the James river, bringing the 
I first slaves into Virginia. In that same year the 
Mayflower brought the Pilgrim founders of New 
England to Plymouth Rock. Slavery was intro- 
I duced into Virginia. Freedom was planted in 
j New England. The contest between the despotic 
principle — the element and guaranty of slavery — 
j anu ^Mc :?." '?X':'r.'3Ji\: pnnciple — the element and 
I guaranty of liberty — commericerf. 
j But slavery was not established in Virginia 
! without remonstrance and resistance. The colo- 
I nists complained veliemently of the introduction 
I of slaves, and resorted to various expedients of 
! prevention. But the desire of the mother country 
I to benefit the navigator, and to stimulate produc- 
' tion, led the British Govornment to disregard 
every complaint, and to negative all colonial 'egis- 
I lation against the slave trade. Slaves continued 
; to be imported. Tlie traffi*- extended to other 
\ colonies, until at length slavery obtained a foothold 
in every one of them. At the breaking out of the 
1 Revolution, slaves were held in every colony, from 
j Massachusetts to Georgia. 

1 Well, sir, how was slavery regarded at that pe- 
' riod ? In September, 1774, the first Congress of 
the colonies met in Philudelphia. Had the oppo- 
sition to slavery, which had been previously man- 
ifested, and the desire for its extinction which had 
been so generally cherished, now become extinct? 
A decisive answer to this inquiry may be found 
in an extract from a singularly able exposition of 
the Rights of British America, prepared by Mr. 
.Tefterson, and laid before the Convention of Vir- 
i ginia, which assembled in August, 1774, for the 
j purpose of appointing dele^'ates to the proposed 
, Congress. I will read this extract: 

" The iJiolUioii of ilomentii: daveitj i.e (lie greatest object 
111" (iBsire in rli'ise oolonies. wht " it v»as unhappily tctrr>- 



I 



duced ii: tbeir infant stale. But, previous to the enfran- 
chisement or thf slaves, it is necessary to exclude further 
importi).;ioi!< from Africa. Yet our repeated attempls to 
eflfect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which 
might amouiit to prohibition, have been hitherto defeated 
by his Maie-ty-s negative; thus preferr^.g the immediate 
advantage of a lew \tric-an corsair; lo the lasting interests 
of Ihc Amerijiii Stales, and the rights of human nature, 
deeply wounded Ijy this infamous practice."— -9m. JirchiL^es, 
'ith seriei, -jol 1 . /;. 6SC. 

The Congress, which soon after assembled, 
shared these sentiments. Among its first acts 
was the framing of the celebrated Articles of 
Association, which composed the Non-Importa- 
tion, Noii-Exportation, and Non-Consumption 
Agreerfiieni. I will read the second of those 
articles: 

" That we will neither import nor purchase any slave im- 
ported after the first day of December next, after which 
time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will 
neither be concerned in it oursflves, nor will we hire our 
vessels, or sell our commodities or manufactures, to those 
wlio are concerned iti it.'' — ^w». .Archives, 4th le.rins, vol. 1, 
;i. !)14. I] 

There was another article in this agreement, jj 
which I will read: I 

"Art. ii4. And wc do furtliei agree and resolve, that we 1 
will have no trade, commerce, dealings, or intercourse what- 
ever, witii any colony or province in North America which 
shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate, this as- 
sociation, but will hold thcin as unworthy of the rights of 
freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of this country." — 
»3m. .Archives, 4th series, vol. 1 , p. 91.5. 

Weli, sir, this .solemn covenant, thus pledging 
every coiony and every citizen to an entire aban- j 
donmen'. anil .suppressiun of the slave trade, was 
signed by eveiy delegate in Congress, southern 
and northern. Public sentiment on this subject was , 
then iinaninious,or next to unanimous, throughout 
the country. Among these signers we find the i 
names, of Rodney, McKean, and Read, of Dela- 
ware; Chase and Paca, of IVlaryland ; Richard j 
Henry Lee, of Virginia; Hoojier and Hewes, of 
North Carolina; and iVlidiDeton. RvVA^'i'''?r, and 

_Ly'Tit'.5 of -Sf m'n Criromiii.; all of whom' subse- ; 

~ quentiy subscribed the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. We also find the names of George Wash- 
ington and Patrick Flenry. 

Now, Mr. President, let it he remembered that 
the.se Articles of Association, eiilered iiito as a 
measure fjr obtaininij a redress of grievances from 
the People and Government of Great Britniii, and 
to the faithful observance of which, in all their 
stipulations, the delegate.s of the colonies pledged 
themselves and their constituencies, " under the 
sacred ties of viitiie, honor, and love of country:" 
let it be remembered , 1 gay, that these Articles con- ■ 
stituteci tiie first bond of' American Union. The 
Union thus constiU'tcd was, to be sure, imperfect, 
partial, incomplete; but it was still a Union, a 
Union o:' the Colonies and of the People, for the 
great objects set forth in tiie Articles. And let it 
be remembered, also, that prominent in the list of 
measures agreed on m these Articles, was the dis- 
continuance of thf- .-lave trade, with a view to the 
ultimate extinetioti of slavery itself. 

I fay v;ith a viev/ to the ultimate extinction of 
slavery, and I have authority for saying so. I 
ask attention to an extract from the proceedings of 
a town meeting at Danbury, Connecticut, held on 
the 12th of December, 1775 : 

" It is with singular pleasure we notice the second article 
of the Association, in which it i> agreed to import no more 
negro slaves, as we cannot but think it a palpable absurdity 
so loudly tT complaii: of iiiterapts to enslave us while we 



are actually enslaving others." — .4m. vItcA>»m, 4tA serietA 
vol \p. 1038. 3 

-^'I'hia was the Northern view. What was the 
southern .' We find it upon record in the proceed- 
ings of the Congress of the Representatives of 
Darien, in the colony of Georgia. Acceding to 
the Association, they declared their views in these 
words: 

" We, the Representatives of the extensive district of 
Darien, in the colony of Georcia, being now assembled in 
Congress, by the atithortty and free choice of the inhabit- 
ants of said district, now freed from their fetters, do resolve." 

Then follow several resolutions setting forth the 
grounds of complaint against the oppressions of 
Great Britain, closing with the emphatic declara- 
tion which I now read: 

'■ To show to the world that we are not intiuenced by any 
contracted or interested motives, but by a general plsilan- 
thropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, languai»e, or 
complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and ab- 
horrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America, 
(however the uncultivated state of our country or other 
specious arguments may plead for it)— a practice founded 
in injustice and cruelty." and highly dangerous to our liber- 
ties as well as lives, debasing part of our fellow-creaturea 
below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the 
rest, and laying the basis of that liberty we contend firr, and 
which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest pos- 
terity, upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore resolve 
at ail times to use our utinost eiideavors far the mamtmission 
of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equita- 
ble footing for the masters and themselves." — ^m, .Archives, 
4tk series, vol. i.p. 1 K^.5. 

That, sir, was the Southern view. At least it 
was the view of a large, and intelligent, and in- 
fluential body of southern men. And with this 
understanding of their effects and tendency, the 
Articles of Association were adopted by colonial 
conventions, county meetings, and lesser assem- 
blages, throughout the country, and became the 
law of America — the fundamental Constitution, so 
to speak, of the first American Union. It 

I less to cite '^l^\ resoiuuons of these meetings.. 

j They can be found in the American Archives by 

I tho.se who desire to investigate the subject, I 

': will quote but two. 

The first is a resolution of the Convention of 

Maryland, held in November, 1774, readopted by 

a subsequent convention, more fully attended, in 

December of the same year: 

^'■Resolved, That every member of tiiis meeting will, and 

' every person in the province should, strictly and inviolably 

! observe and carry into execution the Association agreed on 

, by the Continental Coni:ress." 

The otlier is the declatation adopted by a gen- 
eral meeting of the freeholders of James City 
county, Virginia, in November, 1774, in thesfr 
words: 

" The Association entered into by Congress being publicly 
rtad, the freeholders and other inhabitants of the county, 
that they might testify to the world their concurrence and 
hearty approbation of the measures adopted by that respect- 
able body, very cordially a' ceded thereto, and did bind and 
oblige themselves, by the sacred ties of virtue, honor, and 
love to their country, strictly and inviolably to observe .ind 
keep the same in every particular." 

These, sir, are specimens of the formal and 
solemn declarations and engagements of public 
bodies. To sliow the sentiment which pervaded 
the masses of the people, I will *read an extract 
from an eloquent paper, entitled " Observations 
addressed to the People of America," printed s.t 
Philadelphia in November, 1774: 

" The least deviation from the resolves of Congress will 
be (reason; such treason as teiv villains have ever bad an 
opportunity of committing, it will be treason against the 



3 



present inhabitaats of Ihe colonies, against the mltllonx of | 
(inborn generations who an; to exist hereaaer in America, 
against Ihc only liliurty and liafipinetf.'i wIiIkIi rciii.iiii id 
manliind, against the last lio|)is of the wretcli.Mi ,„ .very 
corner of the WDrld ; inawonl, it will lie troason ag;iin-i 

God. » « * VVk ARK NOW I.AVINll TIU. icll SDATIllVS or ' 
*N AMEr.ilAN CONSTITITU.N. Let »>-, llnTflorf, hold Up 

everything WO do lo llw rye oi p(i,ifrllv. 'I'liey will most 
probably measure their liherlles and happiness by the niowt 
careless of our footsteps, hct no unhallowed hand tourli 
the precious send of lilieriy. Lei u<> form tlit: glorious 
tree in si-.ch a manner, and imprcijnate li with sm h prin- 
ciples of life, that it shall last forever. • • • / ,,'inost 
v.ish to llje to kcur the trinmjilii of Ihe jubilee in th<- i.rnr 
1874; to s'^e the medals, pleiures, frn;;meiits of writint'-", 
tliatrihal) be displayed to revive thcmeniory of the proceed- 
ings of :he Congress of i;; l. if .my adve'nlilious .ircuni- 
stance shall give precedency on that day, it shall he to in- 
herit the blood, or even to po.-seKs the name, of a inenibi-r 
of that glorious assembly." — ^7n'.Ticrtii ^i,rhivei. 4tk y<r;iM, ' 
lol. 1, p. iT/G. 

In these various re.solve.s and declarations-, Mr. 
President, we have the first expressions of the 
public sentimcni. and vi^ill of the American people 
upon this subject of slavery. Tiie earliest action 
of the associated colonies Wiis anti-slavery a>:tion. 
The Union which tliey then formed was indeed, 
as I have said, incomplele; but it was complete 
enough to warrant the Congre.ss wiiich represented 
it in deCiaring independence, in wnn:in^: war, in 
contracting debts; in assuming, in short, many of 
the functions of nationality and sovereignty. 

Well, sir, nearly two years passed by, and the 
grievances of the colonies remained unredressed, 
fhe war ol' the Revolution had begun, and the 
Dcclaratior. of Independence was promulgated. 
That instrument breathed the same spirit a? the 
Articles of Association. The original draught, 
as it came fro.m the hands of Jefferson, contained 
a clause reprobating in the strongest terms the 
traffic in men. I will read it: 

" He has wag^^d cruel war again.^t. human nature il-sclf. 
Violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty In the per- 
sons of^ .iista.'it poople who never oftendcd hirn : captiva- 
ang and cr.iTying them into slavery iu another hi;inl9pher.-, 
'/r to incur a miserahle death in their tran.^portatioii thither. 
This pirat::j.l warfare, the opprobrium of intidel. I'owers, i« 
:he warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Jielei- 
niined to keep open a m.irkct when; i.icn should he bought 
.xnd sold, he has prosiituttd his negative for suppressing 
■?very legislative attempt lo proliibit or restrain this oxccra- , 
t)le commerce." * 

Thi.s clause was indeed omitted from the Decla- 
laiion, rot because it did not express the sentiments 
of the majority of Congress, but, as Mr. Jefferson 
informs us, in compliance to South Carolina and 
Georgia. He intimates also that SDme tenderness 
under these censures was manifested by northern 
gentlemen, whose constituents had been somewhat 
'argely eng.^ged in the slave trade. But still the 
great fundamental truth, which constitutes the 
oasis ofall just government, and which condemns 
equally every form of oppression, was retained in 
the Declaration, and announced to the world as 
self-evi.lenl: the truth that "all men are created 
' equal; '.hat they are endowed by their Creator 
' with certain inalienable rights; that among these 
• are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that 
' to secure these rights governments were instituted 
'among men, deriving their just powers from the 
' conser.: of the governed." 

Thus we see, that, in this second great act of 
the American people, the fundamental truth, upon 
which the Articles of Association were based, was 

"3 MaiK'on Pap'rs, m the close of the volume, where u 
fji'- si nitf ir Mr. Jcflerson's handwritinsr will be found. 



reiterated— not as a "rhetorical flourish," not as 
an abslraciion inca[t«ble of practical application in 
human alTairs, l)Ut a.s a living principle, not to be 
di.sregarded, without fatal consequenccB, in the 
structure or the administration of government. 
That such was the view neiually tukcn of the Dec- 
laration at that time, is further evident from the 
language of the desnatchen transmitting it to the 
authorities of the dillerenl colonies, and to the 
commander-in-chief of the nriny. I will quote a 
paragraph from the letter of the Prcaident of Con- 
gress, John Hancock, to the Convention of New 
Jersey: 

'• I do myself ilie honor to ene|r>he, in obedience to the 
coinmunds of Congre.ss, a copy of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, which you will pleaxe to have proclaimed in 
your colony in such way and manner as you judge best. 
The iniportint eonscquenees resulting to the .Xnierlcan 
S^tativs from this I)>-claration of Iiidc'iM.iidence, < jwiJered 
IIS the ground aiut fouiulalion oj a future Coiei lunvnt , will 
naturally suggest the propriety of prnelaiming it in such a 
mode as that the people may be iiiiiversallv informed of it." 
— ,.?.w)i<<;» Jifrhii-ci, Mil terii's, i-ol. 1, j». 11. 

Such were the principles, Mr. President, of the 
Government and the people during the struggle 
for independence. They were reiterated at the 
close of It. Very .-ihortly after the treaty of peace 
was ratified In ]783, Congress i.ssued an address 
to the States, drawn up by Mr. Madison, the 
inain purpose of which was to pursuade to the 
[irovision of a fund for the discharge of the public 
engagements. That address contains the clau.se 
which I will now rccid: 

'• het it be leiiiembcrcd, finally, that it has ever been thf 
pride and boast of America that the rights for which jhe 
contended were the riehts of human nature- By the blew- - 
ing ofthc .iut/ior 0/' Mfif ri^Ws on the means everted for 
fncir defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, 
and form the bcmii of thirteen ittdci>endent States. No In- 
stance lias heretofore' occurred, nor can any instance be e.x - 
pe.ct«:rt hereafter to occur, in which thi' unadulterated forms 
of rcpubliciin government can prci;"-' io.<io fair an opportu 
nity of justifying themselve.^ by their-fWit'. In thi- virw, 
the citizens of the United Stales are responsible for the 
greatest trust ever confided lo a |K>litical society."—! MiuH 
■ion Papers, ^ip. 11. 

This, sir, was the acknowledgment of 1783: 

, That the war of the Revolution was waged not to 

' vindicate privileges, but rights; not the rights of 

any part or cla^s of the people, but the rights of 

all men — " the rights of human nature." 

It was not long before an occasion arose to te.st 
the sincerity of Congress in these various declara- 
tions; to determine v/hether or not Congress was 
prepared to carry the principles so solemnly recog- 
nized into practical application, without re.-^pect to 
persons or sections. Nor was Congress wanting 
to the occasion. 

On the 1st of March, 1784, Virginia ceded to the 
United States all her claim to the territory north- 
west of the Ohio. Much praise has been awarded 
to Virginia for this cession. I desire lo detract 
nothing from it. Virginia, doubtless, confiJed 
fully in the validity of her title to the territory 
which she reded. It is true that, acting under her 
authority, and in anticipation of an expedition 
ordered by Congress, the gallant George Rogers 
Clarke, at the head of a handful of brave Ken- 
tuckians, dispossessed the British authorities of 
that portion of the territory which they had occa- 
pied on the Wabash and Mississippi. But it 'a 
right to say, and I am bound to say, that the 
validity of the Virginia title was never recognized, 
was always contested, by Congress. Other States 



claimed interests in the same territory. Nev/ York 
claimed the whole; Connecticut claimed a part, 
and Massachusetts also advanced a claim. Against 
all these demands, Congress asserted a right, in 
behalf of the United Stales, to the entire trans- 
Alleghanian region, as crown lands, acquired from 
Great Britain by the common blood and treasure 
of all the States, and appealed to the claimant 
States to relinquish their pretensions. New York 
was the first to respond to this appeal, and her 
cession was accepted by Congress in 1782. Vir- 
ginia had previously proposed to cede all her 
claim northwest of the Ohio on certain conditions; 
but the conditions not being admitted, the cession 
■was not accepted. Subsequently the contest was 
terminated by a satisfactory cession, made by 
Virginia and accepted by Congress. It was an 
arrangement, in fact, which involved concessions i 
on both sides. Virginia yielded to the United i 
States all her claims to territory northwest of the 
Ohio, and the United States tacitly surrendered , 
to Virginia all claim to the territory southeast of 
that river, alleged to be within her chartered limits. 
Ihave thought it my duty to make these observa- 
tions, as a Senator of a State whose rights and ! 
interests, as well as the rights and interests of her ' 
sister States of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illi- 
nois, are affected to some extent, by the claim of 
exclusive title to the western country which has 
been advanced in behalf of Virginia. 

Whatever the title of Virginia may have been, 
however, it is certain that upon her cession, made 
nsl have said, on the Istof March, 1784, the United 
States came into the undisputed ownership and sov- ' 
ereignty of the vast region northwest of the Ohio. ; 
To dispose of the soil and to determine the political ; 
institutions of the territory, now became the duty 
of Congress; and the duty was promptly performed. 
On the very day of the cession , before the sun went 
' .wn, Thomas Jetter&on, in behalf of a committee, 
consisting ofhimself, Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, 
and Mr. Chase of Maryland, reported a plan for 
the government of the Western Territory — not that i 
lying north of the Ohio merely, but of all, from the 
north line of Florida to the north line of the United 
States. This, sir, is a memorable document of our 
early history, and I propose to read portions of it 
to the Senate: \ 

" Tlieterritoryce<ied,or<olece<jeii, by the individual Slates ' 
to the United Slates, " » " shall be formed into distinct 
Stales. * * * The settlers ^ * * shall, either on 
their own petition or on the order of Congres.-?, receive au- 
thority, with appointments of time and place, for their free ! 
males, of full age, to meet together for the purpose of estab- i 
Jishing a temjiorary Government. ■' * * Such temporary 
Government shall only continue in force, in any State, until ' 
it shall have acquired twenty thousand inhabitants; when, 
giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from 
them authority, with appointments of lime and place, to call 
a convention of representatives to establish a permantnt '. 
Constitution and Government for themselves: Provided, i 
That both the temporary and permanent Governments be es- ' 
tablished upon these principles as their basis." 

Here follow sundry provisions, the last of which 
is as follows: ' < 

" That after the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall 
be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said 
States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the ; 
party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally ' 
guilty.' 1 

This, sir, was the plan and proviso of Jefferson. [ 
It met the approbation of the American People. \ 
It proved that the declaration of 1776 was not an j 
empty profession, but a true faith. It oroved 



that the spirit of the covenant of 1774 yet ani- 
mated the heart of the nation. According to this 
grand and comprehensive scheme, the commence- 
ment of the nineteenth century was to witness the 
inauguration of freedom, as the fundamental and 
perpetual law of the transmontane half of the 
American Republic. 

Had this plan and proviso been adopted, we 
should not now be discussing the questions which 
embarrass us. The extension of slavery would 
have been limited by the Aileghanies. No slave 
could ever have trodden a foot of the soil beyond. 
Unhappily, however, the proviso was not adopted; 
and, as 1 have already said that it met the ap- 
proval of the people, I ask attention to the pro- 
ceedings which resulted in its rejection. On the 
19th of April, Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina, 
moved that the proviso be stricken out. Under 
the Articles of Confederation, which governed the 
proceedings of Congress, a majority of the thir- 
teen States was necessary to an affimative decision 
of any question; and the vote of no Stale could be 
counted, unless represented by at least two dele- 
gates. 

The question upon Mr. Spaight's motion was 
put in this form: 

" Shall the words moved to be struck out stand.-" 

The vote stood — 

For the Proviso, six States, viz: New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
New York, and Pennsylvania. 

^Igainst the Proviso, three States, viz: Virginia, 
Maryland, and South Carolina. 

Delaware and Georgia were not represented. 
New Jersey, by Mr. Dick, voted aye, but her vote, 
only one delegate being present, could not be 
counted. The vote of North Carolina was di- 
vided — Mr. Williamson voting aye, Mr. Spaight, 
no. The vote of Virginia stood — Mr. Jefferson, 
aye, Messrs. Hardy and Mercer, no. Of the 
twenty-three delegates present and voting, sixteen 
voted for, and seven against, the proviso. Thus 
was the proviso defeated by a minority vote. The 
people were for it, the States were for it; but it 
failed in consequence of a provision which enabled 
the minority to control the majority. It so hap- 
pened that Mr. Beatty, the colleague of Mr. Dick, 
had left Congress a day or two before, and returned 
a day or two after. Had he been present, or had 
one of Mr. Jefferson's colleagues voted with him, 
the result would have been changed.* How vast 
the consequences which, in this instance, depended 
on a single vote. 

Well, sir, the ordinance of 1784, thus maimed 
and otherwise mutilated, became the law of the 
land on the 23d of April following. In 1785, Mr. 
Jefferson went abroad as Minister to France, and 
was out of the country until after the adoption of 
the Constitution. The agitation of the proviso, 
however, did not cease in consequence of his ab- 
sence. In that same year, (1785,) Mr. King, of 
Massachusetts, again moved the proviso in Con- 
gress, in a slightly modified form, as follows: 

•' Thai there shall be neither slavery nor involuiitary ser- 
vitude in any of the Stales described in the resolves of Con- 
gress of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the punish- 
ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been personally 
guilty ; and that this regulation shall be an article of com- 
pact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitu- 



* 4 Journals Cong. Confed. 374; see also Cong. Globe 
]848-'49, Appen., 294, Speech of Hon. John A. Dii. 



tions between the thirteen original States, and ench n( the 

States dencrihed in llic said resolve of the SSd of April, 
1784."— 4 Jour. Old Com., ^'*\. 

The resolution was ordered to be committed by 
the votes of New Ilnmpshire, Massuchuaclta, Con- 
necticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, and Maiyljuul — eight; aj^ainst the 
votes of Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro- 
lina, and Georgia — four. Delaware was not refi- 
resented. The vote of Maryland was determined 
by two ayes against one no, wliile that of Virginia 
was determined by two noes against one aye. The 
decided favor shown to this resolution by the vote , 
for its commitment was the more remarkable, 
inasmuch a.s it pri>posed the immediate prohibition 
of slavery, instead of prohibition after 1800, in all 
territory acquired and to be acquired. 

No further action was had at this time; but in a 
little more than two years afterwards, the subject 
was brought for the third time before Congress, in 
connection, as before, with tlie government of the 
western territory. The ordinance of 1784, from 
causes into which it is not material to inquire, had 
never been carried into practical operation. Settle- 
ments were about to commence in the Northwest, 
and the settlers needed protection and government. 
Congress, therefore, in 1787, resumed the consider- 
ation of the subject of western territory. These 
deliberations resulted in the celebrated ordinance 
of 1787, the last great act, and among the greatest 
acts of the Congress of the Confederation; an act 
which received the unanimous votes of the States, 
and, with a single exception from New York, of 
all tiie delegates. This ordinance, in its sixth ar- 
ticle of compact, expressly prohibited slavery and 
involuRtnry servitude, except for crime, through- 
out the territory, it abolislied existing slavery, 
and it forbade future slavery. It covered with this 
prohibition every inch of territory then belonging 
to the Uniied States. It expressly declared the 
national policy which this prohibition and kindred 
provisions contained in the articles of compact 
were meant to indicate and establish. This is its 
language: 

•■' For EXTENDING the fwuiaina^tal principles of cicil ami 
religious lU>erty, whereon tliese republics, tl\eir laws and 
constitutions, are erected ; to ji-r ami estaWsh tliose princi- 
ples aj the basis of all laws, conililuHon.'i, and ^ovemtneuts, 
which /orcrer hereafter shtill be formed in the said terri- 
tory: * * * Be it ordained niul declared," &.C. 

To guard against possible future departure from 
this policy, it was ordained that these articles 
should " forever remain unalterable," unless al- 
tered by the "common consent of the original 
States, and the people and States in the territory." 

It is hardly possible to conceive of a more ex- 
plicit declaration of governmental policy than this. 
The state of public -sentiment in regard to slavery, 
which resulted in this positive and unanimous ex- 
clusion of it from national territory, is well de- 
scribed in a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Dr. Price, 
who published about that time a book in favor of 
emancipation. The letter bears date Paris, Au- 
gust 7th, 1785. I will read an extract: 

'• Southward of the Cliesapeake, it "ill find hut few 
readers conourrinc with it [Dr. I'.'s book] in sentiment on 
the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the 
Chesapeake, the Imlk of the pi'ople will approve it in 
theory, and it will find a resperlalile minority ready to adopt 
it in practice ; a minority which, for weight and worth of 
cliaraoter, preponderates against the greater number who 
have not the courage to divest their families of a property 
which, however, keeps their conscience uneasy. North- 
ward of the Chesapeake, you may find here and there an 



I opponent to your docirino, aii you may And here and Ibere 

I a robber or a murderer ; but in no (jrealer number. In that 
part of Amcrie.i, there being but few ulavex, they can eiu-ily 

' diHeneuiiibrr lliemoclvcM of thi'iii ; and eniancipalion is put 
into Much a train Hint in a ffw yiarsthent will be no hUvci. 
norllivvurd nt MarN land. In Maryland I do not find such u 
disposition i()b''iji'ii the redress of tin: enormity an in Vir- 
({iiiiu. 'Ibis iH ihf iitit .SlaiiMo which we may turn our 
eye for tfie Intireslinir spectacle of justice in cunflict with 

I avarice and oppression; a conflict wherein the sacred tiidc 
is gaiiiini; d ily r.crullH from the intlux into oflice of young 
III' n, grown and giciwing up."' 

The general state of opinion is also well ex- 
pressed by Mr. Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia, 
where he says: 

" 1 think a change already prrcrplible since the oripn of 
our present revolution, 'i'he hpiril of the tnaxter is abatiiic ; 
that of the blave is ri'^ing from the duAl, liis condition toolli- 
fying, and the way I hope preparini,', under the auspices of 
Hem en, for a total emamipalion." 

In another place, declaring his own sentiments, 

he said; 

'-'Noliody wishes more ardently th.Hn I to .lee an ab<Hi- 

' tion not oiily of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; 

and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter any 

' sacrifice for that object." 

These sentiments were shared by nearly every 
distinguished character of that time. 

In a letter to Robert Morris, dated Mount Ver- 
non, April 1-2, 1786, George Washington said: 

" I can only say that there is not a man living who 
wishes more sincerely than I do to gee a plan adopted tor 
tlie abolition of it, [slavery;] hut there is only one proper 
and efl'ectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and 
that is by legislative authority : and this, so far as my suf- 
frage will go, shull never he wanlinz."'—!' SyarA>' ffaihini;- 
ton, 158. 

In a letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 
1786, he reiterated this sentiment: 

'• I never mean, unless some particular circumstaocefi 
should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, 
it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted 
by wbich slavery in this countrv may be abolished by 
law."— /'!<i. 

And in a letter to Sir .Tohn Sinclair, he turther 
said: 

" There are in Pennsylvania laws for (be gradual abolition 
of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland have nt 
present, ijut which nothing is inoie certain than they must 
liave, and at a period 710/ renwte.'' 

It is unnecessary to multiply these extracts. So 
universal weie these sentiments, that Mr. Leigh, 
in the Convention of Virginia, in 1832, did not 
hesitate to say: 

" I thought till very lately, that it was known to every- 
body ih;it, during the Revolution, and for many years at'ter, 
the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic with many of 
our ablest statesmen, who entertained with respect all the 
schemes which ivisdoni or ingenuity could suggest for it.< 
accomplishment." 

I think, Mr. President, that two facts may now 
be regarded as established: First, that in 1787 the 
national policy in respect to slavery was one of 
restriction, limitation, and discouragement. Sic- 
ondly, that it was generally expected that under 
the action of the State governments slavery would 
gradually disappear from the States. 

Such was the state of the country wlien the 
Convention met to frame the Constitution of the 
United States. That Convention was sitting in 
Philadelphia while Congress was framing the Or- 
dinance in New York. 

It has been said, in the course of this debate, 
that there was some understanding between Con- 
gress and the Convention in regard to the question ^ 
of slavery. Thatmaybcso. There is, however. 



6 



nothing in history which proves it, though cir- 1 
cumstances do certainly seem to warrant such a 
conjecture. But, if there was an understanding, 
to what did it relate? Not certainly to the whole 
subject of slavery; for, up to the time of the pro- 
mulgation of the ordinance, no discussion had 
taken place in the Convention on that suUject, ex- 
cept ill respect to the question of representation 
and taxation. That question had been discussed 
with considerable heat: so much, indeed, that some 
members declared themselves ready to break up 
the Convention rather than consent to the repre- 
sentation of slaves. The exclusion of slavery 
from the territories by the ordinance may have 
had, and may have been intended to have, some 
influence upon this discussion. It may be that 
members from the free States, seeing slavery ex- 
cluded from national territory, and supposing its 
extension to be thereby forever interdicted, v/ere 
the more v/illing to consent to a representation of 
slaves as a temporary arrangement, which would 
cease of itself when slavery itself should cease or 
run out, at some period " not remote. " But there 
is not a particle of foundation for any supposition 
that there was any understanding between Con- 
gress and the Convention, based upon the idea 
that slavery and freedom were entitled to equal 
regard in the action of the Government. Far from 
ii. Whatever understanding there was, if there 
was any, must have been based upon the idea of 
slavery restriction; upon the fact that its extension 
was prohibited, and that its final disappearance ' 
was expected. 

The framers of the Constitution acted under the 
influence of the general sentiment of the country. 
Some of them had contributed in no small meas- 
ure to form that sentiment. Let us examine the 
instrument in its light, and ascertain the original 
import of its language. 

What,_then, shall we find in it? The guaran- 
tees so much talked of? Recognition of property 
in men ? Stipulated protection for that property 
in national territories and by national law ? No, 
sir; nothing like it. 

We find, on the contrary, extreme care to ex- 
clude these ideas from the Constitution. Neither 
the word " slave" nor "slavery" is to be found 
:n any provision. There is not a single expres- 
sion which charges the National Government with 
any responsibility in regard to slavery. No power 
is conferred on Congress either to establish or sus- 
tain it. The framers of the Constitution left it 
where they found it, exclusively within and under 
the jurisdiction of the States. Wherever slaves 
are referred to at all in the Constitution, whether 
in the clause providing for the apportionment of 
representation and direct taxation, or in that stip- 
ulating for the extradition of fugitives from ser- 
vice, or in that restricting Congress as to the pro- 
hibition of importation or migration, they are 
spoken of, not as persons held as property, but as 
persons held to service or having their condition 
determined, under State laws. We learn, indeed, 
from the debates in the Constitutional Convention, 
that the idea of property in men was excluded 
v\?ith special solicitude. 

Mr. Madison declared, he " thought it wrong 
to admit in the Constitution the idea that there 
could be property in men." — 3 .Vati. Pap., 1429. 
Mr. Gerry thought the Convention " had noth- 
ing to do with the conduct of the States as to 



slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any 
sanction to it."— 3 Mad. Pap., 1394. 

Similar expressions were used by other mem- 
bers. But I need go no further. Multiplied words 
will not convince those who will not regard the lan- 
guage of the Constitution itself, or the plain decla- 
rations of its framers. 

It may, however, be worth while to refer briefly 
to the views expressed in the State Conventions 
which convened for the purpose of considering the 
Constitution with a view to its ratificaticn. Did 
they expect the extension or continuance of slavery 
through the action or under the protection of the 
Government which they were called on to estab- . 
lish ? Not at all. 

James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been a 
leadintr member of the Con\'ention, and in the 
Ratific'ation Convention of his State, whenspeaking 
of the clause relating to the power of Congress 
over the slave trade after twenty years, he said: 

" 1 consider tliis Claiiso as laying the foumlation for ban- 
ishing slavery out ol" ihis county; aud though the period is 
more distant than I could wish it, it will produce the same 
kind, gradual ehanae as was produced in Pennsylvania. 
* *' * * The new States which are to be formed will be 
under tlie control of Congress in this particular, and slavery 
will never be introduced among them.''~i Elliot's Debate-, 
45-2. 

In another place, speaking of this ciause, he 
said: 

'' It presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights 
of mankind will be acknowledged and establisedthroughou: 
the Union. If there was no other lovely feature in the Con- 
stitution but this one, it would diHuse a beauty over its whole 
countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress 
will have power to exterminate slavery from witiiin our 
borders."— 2 Elliot's Debaiex, 484. 

In the Ratification Convention of Massachusetts, 
General Heath said: 

" The migration or importation, &c., is confined to the 
States now cxistiugonly; new States cannot claim it. Con- 
gress, bv their ordinance for creating new States.. some time 
since declared that the neVi- States shall be republican, and 
that there shall be no slavery in ihem."— 2 Elliot's Debater, 
115. 

Nor were these views and anticipations confined 
to the free States. In the Ratification Convention 
in Virginia, Mr. Johnson said: 

" They tell us that they see a progressive danger of biiiiging 
about emanciiiation. The principle has begun since the 
Revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. 
Slavery has been the foundation of much of that impiety and 
dissipation which have been so much dissemminated among 
our countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it would do 
much good." — 3 Elliot's Debates, 6 — 18. 

And Governor Randolph, while denying, and 
justly denying, the power of the General Govern- 
ment, under the Constitution, to interfere with 
slavery in the States, rebuked those who ex- 
pressed apprehensions that its influence might be 
exerted on the side of freedom, by saying: 

" I hope that there are none here who, considering the su'o- 
ject in the calm light of philo-iophy, w'ill advance an objec- 
tion dishonorable to Virginia, that, at the moment tliey are 
securing the rights of their citizens, there is a spark of hope 
that those unfortunate men now held in boi\dage may, by 
the operalion of the General Government, be made/ree."— 
y Elliot's Debates, 598. 

But the people were not satisfied with the fac: 
that no power to invade personal freedom was 
conferred on Congress by the Constitution. They 
demanded direct and positive guarantees of per- 
sonal rights. In compliance with these demand.?, 
several of the Ratification Conventions proposed 
to Congress such amendments as were desired by 
their respective States. 



Virginia proposed a bill of rig;htP, omiiiing, mn- 
gularly enough, the first and rundamentai piovibioii 
of her own bill of rights, namely, lii'it " all men 
fire born equally free and indept ndr-iit," hut coii- 
taiiiiiig this provih;ioi\: 

"N<)/ror»iini oiikIii to t»' takoii, iiiipiiH<)MrJ,i)r diHsi-izfil 
of his frpfliDUl, liliirlics, ptivilcgci', or rrnnrliispfi, or out- 
lawed, or exiled, or in any iniiiiiirr deKtroyoil or deprived of 
bin life, lilicrty, or |iro|i. ily. M A;/ the liiw nj Ihr /dm/."— .'I 
Kliiot's Debates, COe. 

North Carolina and Riiode Island each proposed 
the same olause. (4 Elliot's Debutes, -M'.i-, 1 Ib./SM.) 
New York proposed a ilill'crent provision: 

•' No ;)iTvoii ouslit to \k taken, imiitisoiii'd. or rtisdei/.ed 
of liis freehold, or In; exiled, or deprived of his privilfcpeH, ; 
franchises, life, liherty, or propntv. hill hy due proeen.-* of 
law."— I rutiofs Dchitirs, .'Wy. 

These various propositions came before Con- 
gress, and that body, at its first session, agreed 
upon several amendments to the Constitution, 
which were subseiiunntly ratified by the States. 
That which related to personal liberty was ex- 
pressed in these comprehensive words: 

«' No person » •» » » shall b« deprived ol life, lili- 
lifty, or property, without due process t.f law.'"— C'o/iv., 
.ihicni., ^ht. 5. 

In my judgment, sir, if this amendment had i 
never been made, Congress would have had no 
power to institute slavery ; that is to say , to enforce, 
by its laws, the subjection of one man to the ab- 
solute control and disposal of another mun: for no 
such power is conferred by the Constitution, and ■ 
the action of Congress nui.st be restrained within ; 
its delegated powers. But the amemlmeiU is an | 
e.x[)ress guarantee of personal liberty. It is an ex- [i 
press prohibition against its invasion. So long as 
jlreinainsapart of the Constitution, and is obeyed, \ 
slavery cannot be constitutionally introduced ariy- 
where or maintained anywhere by the legislation 
of Congress. It must depend, and depend wholly, 
upon y*iUe law, both for existence and support. 
Beyond State limits, within the boundaries of the 
United States, there can be constitutionally no 
slave. 

Here I may pause. 1 have rapidly sketched the 
rise of the American Government and the Ameri- 
can Union, so far as their relations to American 
slavery are involved, from their origin in the As- 
sociation of 1774 to the establishment i^'i the Con- 
stitution in 1787. One spirit pervaded, one prin- 
ciple controlled al! this action— a spirit of profound 
reverence for the rights of man as man— the prin- 
ciple of perfect equality of men before the law. 

Animated by this s-pirit and guided by this prin- 
ciple, the Association bound all its members to di.s- 
conlinue the slave trade. If any of them continued 
it— and some of them did— the guilt was on tircir 
own heads only, for the Association liad no power 
to enforce the covenant. When the Ameiican Con- 
gress resolved on independence, they solemnly an- 
nounced the great doctrine of inalienable ri'j,hts as 
the basis ofthe national political faith and the 
foundationof all just government. When the war 
of the Revolution was over, they renevvcd the dec- 
laration, that the contest which they had waged 
was in defence of the rights of human nature. 
When the acquisition of the Northwesterii Terri- 
tory presented an opportunity of carrying into 
practical application their exalted principles, they 
did not hesitate, but established tnem tbrever as 
the basis of all law.?, constitutions, and govern- 
ments, witliin its limit.-?. When the Confederation 



proved inadequate to the exigem icb of the Repub- 
lic, and the people undertook the v/ork of reform- 
ing their political system, they niiifititutod the new 
Govenimtnt and establitlied the new t;>.!i6titiition 
upon priu' iples which madi: the « rihlavernent of 
men i)y the (jJovernment under the Constitution a 
legal iinpo.ssibiluy. Let those who nre inclined to 
murmur b« cause no more waHdone, ask theraselves, 
by what people, in what ap btsidcH.haa .,o much 
been done for the c«u."e of freedom and right r Up 
to llic time of the adoption of the ConMtitulion, 
there wiu) not a single slave in America, made such 
or held such, under any law of the United States. 
Had the policy of the founders of the Republic been 
puisued, and had the [>rinripl( s which they estab- 
lished been failhCully cnrrietl out in legislation and 
administration, there would have been r.ow no 
slave anywhere uiidor exclusive national 'urisdic- 
tion— probably no slave within the bounouries of 
the Republic. 

Unhappily, however, the original policy of the 
Govcriimenl and the original principles of the Gov- 
ernment in ri sjicci to slavery did not nerrriar.ently 
control it:j action. A change occurred — almost im- 
perceptible at firt-t, but becoming more and more 
marked and decided, until nearly total. The hon- 
orable Senator from iMassachusetts in the course 
of his late speech noticed this change, and ascribed 
it to the rapid increase in the production of cotton. 
Doubtless, sir, that was a leading cause. The pro- 
duction of cotton, in consequence of the invention 
of the cotton gin, increased from 487,600 pounds 
in 1793, to 6,-J7(j,300 pounds in 17'J6, and continued 
to increase very rapidly afterwards. Of course the 
market value of slaves advanced, and masters were 
less inclined to emancipation. 

But the increase of the cott.ni crop was rot the • 
only,. nor, in my judgment, the chief cause of al- 
tered public sentiment and governmental action. 
The change in the structure of the Governnient 
which introduced into one brancli of ;hfc Lcgisia 
ture, and into the electoral college, a representation 
for slaves, constituted, I think, a far more potent 
cause. 1 will sketch the progress of the power 
derived from this source, for I think it '.rnportani 
that its practical Ojieration should be understood. 
, I admit that it is conferred by the Constitution; 
but , , ^ 

iVlr. BORLAND. Will the honorable senator 
allow mo to ask him a question r 

Mr. CHASE. Certainly. 
' Mr. BORLAND. I think i understood the 
Senator as giving as a reason for adhering to the 
institution of slavery on the part of southern states- 
men, that the Constitution allowed the slave popu- 
lation to form a basis of representation. Does the 
Senator give that as a reason why they adhered 
to the institution of slavery, and became more 
attached to it .' 

Mr. CHASE. 1 believe that was or-e of the 
reasons. ' 

Mr. BORLAND. Then 1 can say to the Sena- 
tor that his argument, it seems to me, confutes 
itself; for the reason that if the slaves were liber- 
ated, each would be counted; whereas, being re- 
tained as slaves, only three-fifths of their number 
are brou^rht into the computation, and we lose two- 
fifths. ' „ ., ^ 
Mr. CHASE. Undoubtedly, Mi'- President, if 
the slaves were free they would be reckoned at 
their full number in the basis of representation; 



8 



but the iofluence of their representation upon the 
character of the Government would be wholly 
changed. There would be no slave interest. 

Mr. BORLAND. Free negroes are represented . 

Mr. CHASE. I am obliged to the Senator from 
Arkansas for the information he jrives me: I had 
learned the fact he states from the Constitution. 
Why, sir, is it not quite obvious that in a district 
where the number of slave.s is considerable, even 
iif suffrage be universal, the number of votes must 
be proportionably reduced? And, inasmuch as 
slaveholders are usually the chief landholders and 
p^operty holders, and have a common interest, is it 
not quite obvious that they will generally be able to 
wield the political power of the district : Destroy 
the slave representation, and their power is gone. 
Enfranchise the slaves, and there are no slave- 
holders, and of course no slave power. Enfran- 
chisement will, doubtless, increase the political 
power of the State, but it will annihilate the slave 
power. I repeat, Mr. President, a:; J they who 
think me v/rong may refute what I say, if they 
can, that there must have been some adequate 
cause or causes for the remarkable cliange of feel- 
ing and action in regard to slavery which began to 
manifest itself about this time, and that these 
causes, in my judgment, were— first, the politi- 
cal power derived by slaveholders from the rep- 
resentation of three-fifths of their slaves; and, 
secondly, the augmented value of slaves arising 
from the sudden increase of the cotton culture. 
The last of these causes requires no further con- 
sideration; but I v/ish to direct attention some- 
what more particularly to the^first. 

The firat apportionment was made by the Con- 
stitution Convention. Regard was had, doubtless, 
to the three-fifths rule in determining the number 
of Representatives assigned to each State; but we 
cannot now ascertain how tinany were allowed for 
ihe slaves. Tiie census supplies the means of 
ascertaining the precise quantum of slave repre- 
sentation in each decennial period since the first 
apportionment. I nov.- propose to submit to the 
Senate a table, which exhibits at one view each 
decennial period since the adoption of the Consti- 
tution; the number of inhabitants required for 
one Representative; the number of slaves reck- 
oned at three-fifths of their actual nuhi'oer; ar.d 
the number of Representatives for slaves for each 
period: 



Dftcrnnial 


Representative 


Threp-flfths of 


Re, 


resenta- 


period. 


iiuiriber. 


slaves. 


tives 


or slaves. 


1780 — 1800 


30,100 


408,737 




13 


1800 — 1810 


33,0;i0 


.-5.35,894 


1 


16 


1810 — 182!) 


35,000 


714,816 




20 


1820 — 1830 


40,1100 ~ 


922,839 




23 


1830 — 1840 


40,700 


1,205,418 




2.1 


1840 — 1850 


70,6f'0 


1,493,013 




21 



From this table it appears that in the very first 
Congress, if the Convention based their original 
apportionment upon anything like a correct esti- 
mate of the population, there must have been at 
least ten representatives of slaves, and that in the { 
second Congress there were thirteen. It was irn- ! 
possible that the influence of this representation 
should not be felt. It was natural, though it does I 
seem to have been anticipated, that the unity of [ 
the slave interest, strengthened by this accession ; 
of political power, should gradually weaken the j 



public sentiment and modify the national policy 
against slavery. 

Well, sir, occasion was not long wanting to test 
the dispositions of Congress in this respect. At an 
early period of the second session of the first Con- 
gress, petitions were presented from the Society of 
Friends in Philadelphia and New York, and from 
the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, of which 
Benjamin Franklin was the President, praying 
Congress to take such measures as the Constitu- 
tion would permit to discountenance and discour- 
age slavery and the slave trade. A similar address 
had been made by a deputation of Friends to the 
Congress of the Confederation, in 1783, who were 
received and heard with great respect, though 
Congress, having no power over the subject, was 
obliged to decline taking such action as was de- 
sired.'" The petitions now presented were not 
treated with similar consideration. They were, 
however, received and referred, and in due time a 
report was made. In this report the limits of the 
powers of Congress over the subjects of slavery 
and the slave trade were carefully defined. In re- 
gard to slavery in the States, it expressed the fullest 
" confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the 
' legislatures, that they would revise their laws 
' from time to time, when necessary, and promote 
' the objects mentioned in the memorials, and every 
' other measure that may tend to the happiness of 
' slaves;" and, in regard to slavery within the 
sphere of the legitimate action of Congress, it con- 
cluded with the following expression; 

'•That the riienioiialists be inronned that, in all c.ise? to 
which the aiithiirity of Congrrss extends, they will eseroi^H 
it for the humane ohjpcts of the memorialists, so far as they 
can lie promoted on ttie principles ofjustice, huniauity,anil 
good policy."— 2 Deh. Cong., Old Sej., 1465. 

This report was assailed with great vehemence, 
especially by the meiT»bers from South Carolina 
and Georgia, who denounced the petitioners and 
their objects, not sparing even the venerable Frank- 
lin, very much in the style of later days. The 
African slave trade itself came in for a share of 
approval and vindication. 

It was apparent that there was a large majority 
in favor of the report; but a desire to satisfy even 
unreasonable objectors, induced the concession of 
one point after another, until the report was 
reduced to three propositions: First, that migra- 
tion or importation could not be prohibited prior 
to 1608. Second, lha.t Congress had not power to 
interfere in the emancipation or treatment of slaves 
in the States. Third, that Congress could pro- 
hibit the slave trade by the citizens of the United 
States for the supply of foreigners, and provide 
for humane treatment, on their passage, of those 
imported into the States. The last resolution of 
the original report, which pledged the Governmen:, 
in conformity with its past policy and profe.ssed 
principles, to promote the objects of the memorial- 
ists, was stricken out altogether. 

This was the first fruit of intimidation on the 
one side, and concession and compromise on the 
other. The majority of the House forbore to ex- 
jiress their own settled convictions; forbore lo 
pledge themselves to that course of disfavor to 
slavery and the slave trade, which consistency, 
honor, and humanity, required of them; yielded 
everything of substance, and retained little else 

* 4 Journal Congress Confed., 286-89.; 1 Oeh. Congrpss, 
Old Series. 1224. 



9 



ihan form. Could they have seen that this was 
but tlie first step in a. \in\i: lincof coiicesaioiiH, per- 
haps not yet ended, surely the patriotic men who 
composed thai CongresB would never have taken 
chat first step. 

\VI>Ml follinvcd, sir? In tli;U Htime ycnr, North 
Carolina tendered to the United States ii ccHhion of 
the territory lying lietwecn the mountains which 
form her present western l)0(indnry and the Missis- 
sippi, and nowconstiiuting; the Slate of Tennessee, 
upon condition " that the inhnl)itan(3 should have 
all the privileges, benefits, and advantuges, of the 
ordinance of 1787, provided, always, that no regu- 
lations made or to be mtide by Congress should i 
tend to emancipate slaved." Congress accepted ; 
this cession, and provided for the government of I 
'he ceded country as a slaveholding territory. j 

Hitherto Congress had never sanctioned slave- 
holding. Never hitherto had a single slave been 
held under any authority emanating from Con- 
-gress. On the contrary, us we li-ive seen, ii\ all 
•he territory iiiiherto acquiicd, slavery had been 
promptly abolished, and impregnable barriers , 
erected against its renewed introduction. The ac- 
ceptance of the North Carolina cession rexxrsed 
'.he. policy of the Government, and was a step in ; 
'.he wrong direction. To preserve the dominion 
Df a few masters over an inconsiderable number 
of slaves, established policy, settled principle, and 
dafe precedent, were alike disregarded. It was a 
miscnievous — an almost fatal error. 

In 1802, Georgia ceded to the United States;.the 
country lying between her present western limit 
tnd the Missi.ssippi, stipulating that the ordinance j 
>f 1787, in all its provisions, should extend to the 
;eded lerritory, " that article only excepted which 
forbids slavery." Tliis cession was accepted, and 
*.he territory placed under a territorial govern- , 
ment, restricted from all interference with slavery. ; 
This was the second chapter in the history of re- 
action.* , 

In 1803, we acquired Louisiana by purchase ; 
■'rom the French Republic. There were al that 
-ime about forty thou.sand slaves held within its ; 
• imits, under the French law. The treaty con- , 
:ained this stipulation: ; 

-' The iiili.ii)itaiils of tlifi ceded teriitory shall be iiifor|io- 
•atf.il in the Union of llie Uniled Suites and adniiUed :is soiin 
IS pnssihic, according to the principles of the Federal Con- 
stitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, adviintanes, and 
aninunities of citizens of the Uniti'd St.itea; and, in the 
.neari time, they shall be maintained in the free enjoyuien' 
>f their libertv, propertv, and the reli'iion which they pro- ' 
ess."'— 8 Uniicd Stairs Statutes iit Large, 20Q. i 

This Stipulation, interpreted according to the 
plain sense of its terms, and carried into ))ractical 
iffect, would have enfranchised every slave in 
Louisiana; for no one, I apprehend, will venture ; 
.0 affirm that the slaves were not inhabitants. In- ; 
iependently of this stipulation, it was tKe duty of 
'he Government — even more imperative then in 
i787, for since then the Vv'hole country south of 
'.he Ohio and east of the Mi-ssissippi had been 
formed into slave Slates and slave territories — to 
establish freedom a-j the fundamental law of the ^ 
aew acquisition. But this duty was not performed, i 
There was some feeble legislation against the in- || 
'.roduclion of slaves from foreign countries, and of jj 

■"More properly .speakini; tin tliird, ^inrt the cession of j| 
tlie District of Columbia had lieen previously accepted, and :, 
the slave code.^ of Virginia and Maryland adopted and con- ;| 
'.iaued therein by act of Congress. I 



slaves imported since 1798 from tlie other Stales; 
but that was all, and that was useless. 

Tiien came the cession of Florida by Spain in 
1820. The stipulation in the treaty was subslan- 
tially the same as in the treaty with France;" the 
duty of llie GovLrnmcni in reajiect in the acquisi- 
tion was the same; and there was the saiTie failure 
to perform it. 

Finally, Texas came in, in 1845, not as a terri- 
tory, but as a State. Within her iimiia, slavery 
was never under the control of Congress. The 
existence of slavery there was nil objection to her 
admi.s.oion into the Union; but once admitted, and 
admitted ns a Slate, lur internal legislation on that 
subject was as much beyond the reach of the 
National Government as before. 

Now, sir, what would have been the resull if 
the fiolicy which formed the cessions of North 
Carolina, Georgia, France, and Spain, into slave 
territories, and finally admitted slaveholding Tex- 
as, had prevailed in 1787? Slavery, it is well 
known, existed in the Northwestern Territory. 
The honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douo- 
LAs] has informed us that slavery was continued 
in that State, notwithstanding the ordinance, 
under liie protection of the State constitution. 
We know what persevering efTorts — continued 
from lci02 to 1807, and until final rejection of the 
application here — were used to induce Congress to 
suspend the operation of the slavery prohibition 
in tne ordinance in respect to all the territory not 
included within the limits of Ohio. We know 
what arguments were employed — the same pre- 
cisely which have ever since been urged by those 
who would reconcile the pcopU^ to the extension 
of slavery — the same, doubtless, which were urged 
with too fatal success to persuade the National 
Legislature to its first departure from the policy 
of 1774 and 1787. It was said that slavery would 
not be increased by the prope^ed ••♦I'ension, its 
only effect being to change the locality of persona 
already slaves; that the happiness of the slaves 
would be promoted by increased comforts of their 
new abodes; and, finally, that emancipation would 
be promoted by spreading the slaves over the 
largest possible extent of lerritory, and thereby 
making emancipation safe t 

These facts furnish conclusive proof that but 
for the positive prohibition of slavery by the or- 
dinance of 1787, every foot of land west of the 
Alleghany mountains would have been at this day 
slave toil. No law of physical geography or 
formation of the earth, no want of adaptation of 
soil or climate to the great staples of slave labor, 
no imaginary barrier in degrees of latitude, would 
have arrested the progress of the fatal blight. 

Let us be thankful that the wisdom of iha 
founders of the Republic forsaw, and by positive 
prohibition prevented this great calamity. Let 
us be thankful, also, that those who followed 
them, though they failed to imitate their example, 
were yet unwilling to undo their work. 

Let me now, sir, sum up the results of thi« 
policy of adding new slave territories and new 
slave States to the Union, which was substituted 
for the original jjolicy of free territories and free 
States. ».^ 

I make no remark here upon the admission of 

* 8 United States Statutrs at Laige, 256^ 
t20 American ?t:ite Papers, 3t7, 485. 



10 



Kentucky. That State was a district of Virginia, 
and never a territory of the United States. But 
out of territories ceded to the Union, and actually 
organized under national jurisdiction, since the 
adoption of the Constitution, seven slave States 
have been erected and admitted: Tennessee out of 
the cession of North Carolina; Alabama and Mis- 
eissippi out of the cession of Georgia; Louisiana,^ 
Missouri, and Arkansas, out of the cession of 
France; and Florida out of the cession of Spain. 
Besides these States, we have annexed slavehold- 
ing Texas, vast in her undisputed limits, and 
•with vast claims beyond them. Here are eight 
new slave States, created and admitted out of ter- 
ritories, not one foot of which had been ceded to 
the United States prior to the Constitution, and 
five of them out of foreign territory acquired by 
purchase or annexation since its adoption. 

Well, sir, where are the free States which have 
come into the Union out of these territories .' 
There is but one. Iowa is the single State yet 
admitted out of all the vast territories acquired 
eince the organization of the Government. 

Thus, sir, we see that while the original policy 
of the Government secured to freedom all the ter- 
ritory acquired before the Constitution, and al! the 
States erected out of it, the reversal of that policy 
secured to slavery most of the territory subse- 
quently acquired, and al! the Slates formed out of 
it except one. 

Now, sir, I desire to submit to the Senate a 
comparison of the areas which belonged respect- 
ively to freedom and to slavery at the date of the 
Constitution, and the areas which have been de- 
voted to freedom and to slavery, respectively, in 
States created out of territories, and admitted into 
the Union since that dale. I have compiled from 
the reports of the Commissioner of the Land Office 
a statement exhibiting this comparison, which I 
will read : ^t .j^ 

FREE STATES. Square miUs. 

States in 1787, including Vermont and Maine 164,081 

States out ol" North westera Territory, viz: Oiiio, 

Indiana, I IIinoi^:, Michigan, and Wisconsin 239,345 

State out of foreign ttrritory acquired, vie; Iowa.. 60,914 

454,340 



SLAVE STATES. 

States in 1787, includii^s Kentucky 243,642 

States o.it of territory within original limits, viz: 

Tenne.-see, Ai:ib,iina,aiid Missio-ippi 141,959 

States out of foreign ttrrliory acquirf d, including 

Texas witliia her undisputed boundaries 373,786 

7.59,3(17 



Difference in favor of slave States, in square miles.. 304,937 

Add to tliirf pars of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, be- 
tween the Nueces and Rio Grande, claimed hy 
Te.xaB 52,018 

Adialso paitof New Mexico, ea;t of Kio Grande, 
claimed by Toxas 124,£33 

And the v.ist aggregate difference would swell to. . . 431,918 

Upon inspection of this table, it will be seen 
that, had the original policy of the Government 
been persevered in, and no new slave States cre- 
ated out of territories, the difference of area in fa- 
vor of freedom within the orijinal limits of the 
Republic would have been 2b2,738 square miles; 
and all territory acquired beyond those limits 



would of course have been free. It will be seen, 
also, that the reversal of this policy reduced this 
difference to 18,905 square miles, and by acquisi- 
tions of foreign territory, changed the balance 
and created a difference in favor of slavery of 
304,967 square miles, which will be increased, if 
the claims of Texas are allowed, to the erorntious 
quantity of 431,918 square miles. Within these 
limits slavery suffers for want of room — is " cab- 
ined, cribbed, confined," and seeks a wider sphere! 
Sir, complaints from the slave States, under 
these circumstances, sound strangely to me. Why, 
sir, has not the policy of the Government been re- 
vei-sed in favor of their system } Has not slavery- 
been extended to undreamed-of limits ? Have not 
the slave States been more than doubled in num- 
ber.' Has not their area been almost tripled in 
extent.' And yet they complain — complairi of the 
aggressions of the North. They complain that 
the recapture of fugitive slaves is rendered difficult 
by free State legislation and free State sentiment; 
and that the subject of sla.very is discussed and ad- 
verse opinions formed in the free Slates, which the 
electors ask us to embody in national legislation; 
that slavery has been already excluded from a por- 
tion of the national territories; and that a determi- 
nation is manifested to prevent its further exten- 
sion, and to restore the original policy of slavery 
restriction and discouragement. 

Now, sir, BO far as these complaints have refer- 
ence to the action of the people, it is impossible to 
appease them. This is a Government of the peo- 
ple, and the voice of the people must be heard and 
respected in its administration. The States also 
are governments of the people, and must be ad- 
ministered in conformity with the popular will. 
If the settled judgment and conscientious convic- 
tions of the people are against slavery, legislation, 
within constitutional limits, must follow that judg- 
ment and those convictions. 

And, so far as these complaints respect the for- 
mer action of the National Government, they who 
make them complain of themselves. For where 
has resided the practical control of this Govern- 
ment."' Let a few facts answer this question. At 
the close of the current Presidential term, the slave 
States will have held the Presidency fifty-two 
years; the free States only twelve years. Of the 
gentlemen who have filled the Department of State, 
fourteen have been from the slave States, and five 
only from the free. Thirteen of the Judges of the 
Supreme Court have been taken from the slave 
States; from the free States, twelve. No northern 
man has filled the office of Chief Justice during this 
century; and, notv/ithstanding the population of 
the free States is more than double the free popu- 
lation of the slave States, the latter have always 
been represented by a majority of the Judges upon 
the Supreme Bench. Ofthe Speakers of the House 
of Representatives, twelve have been from the slave 
States, and eight only from the free States; thus 
giving to the slave States the control of the ap- 
pointment of the committees, and, consequently, 
of the business of the House. Sir, it cannot be 
denied that the power of this Government, in al) 
its departments, has been for many years, practi- 
cally and substantially, in the hands of southerti 
men, and has been used to advance the interests, 
real or supposed, of the slave section of the coun- 
try. 
These are not my assertions merely. They are 



11 



the nsHcrtions of our public history, confirmed by 
the testimony of southern gcntleiuen. 1 bes; leave 
to quote un extract from One, Cliarleston Courier 
of October 30, IB44: • 

" Oiir piist experience \m\* ^-Iiowii that the wclfjlit of llie ; 
:?OUth lia.-* Iieq;! luMvily fell in tlic |Mi|ilic;il IjaLiiice, uiid Imn 
llmoit nlway.M iiiot\o|M)liz(!il liixh IVderiil olticc. 

" TtiH soullierii or sluvf holding tit.itiis liiiVt |;ivini( fix nut 
often Prrsidenis to ilin I'nioii ; tlie iiortliurii or iion-HJavi'- 
holdint; States have Kivrn lint four, and nut of thuMc four 
the twi) liist were chosen hy a larRe majority of snulhcrn 
votes, and the l:ist \va.s a nativv' Virginian, filially devoted J 
to the rights and intf resis of tlie land ofliin hirth ; and even , 
ihe two lir-''t enlisted a strung southern ttuppnrt. 

" Again, of the six sonthern I'residenL", live were reelect- ' 
■d to their liiyh offices, and each occupied it for eight yearn, | 
ind only one will have occupied it liut four ye rs, giving in ' 
all to the slaveholding interest the poji^cssinn and conirnl 
of the I'regnlency for forty-four years out of fifty-six, while 
of the four nonslaveholding Presidents three occupied the 
Presidency but four years each, and one only a little month, 
^ivine in all to (he non-s!aveli(ddin); intfrest the possession 
jnd control of the Presidency for only twelve years out of 
fifty-six. 

".So of the OliiefJusiices of the Union; the South has 
had three, and the North but two out of the five incumbents 
')( that auifust judicial seat. 

"At this moment (October 30, 184-1) the southern or 
jiavehntdiiig interest enjoys a m(mopoly of higli federal 
office, executive, judicial, legislative, military, and naval. 
John Tyler, of Virainia, is President; and his Cabinet con- 
sists of John C. Calhoun, a South Carolinian, Secretary of 
Slate; George M. Uibb, a Kentuckian, Secretary of the 
Treasury; John Y. Mason, a \'irj;lnian, S.'cretary of the 
Navy; Charles A. VVickliire,a Kenluckian, Postmaster Gen- 
eral ; John Nelson, a Marylander, Attorney General , and 
William Wilkins, a Pennsylvaninn, the single exception on 
the list, Secretary of War; Rojer II. Taney, a Marylander, 
is Chief Justice of the United Slates ; Willie P. Manj-uni, a 
North Carolinian, i- President of the Senate ; and John VV. 
Jones, a Virginian, is Speaker of the House of Representa- 
tives; and southern men stand at the head uf the niovt iin 
pnrtant committees of both branches of Congress ; Winfield 
Scott, a Virginian, is Major General of our Army: and 
James Barron, a Virsinian, senior officer of our navy : and, 
to crown all, Henry Clay, a Kentuckian, is the Whig, and 
Jamei) K. Polk, a 'I'ennessean, the Democratic candidate 
for the next Presidency, securing to us the future as well a-s 
'he p^--*. 

" Ifthis be not the lion's shnr? of political power, words 
iiavc lost their meaning; ifthis be not enough to satisfy tlie 
South, she must be insatiable indeed."' 

All thii^, Mr. President, with unimportant modi- 
fications, is as true of IS-W as it was of 1844. The 
President and a majority of his Cabinet are slave- 
holders; the Speaker of the House is a slaveholder; 
'.he committees of both Houses are so constituted 
f.hat tiie slave interest may receive no damage; and 
the slave States have now, as ever, a majority of 
the Judges of thcSupreme Court. The E.Kecutive, 
Legislative, and .Judicial Departments are in the 
hands of the slave power. What more can they 
desire ? 

Having referred, Mr. President, to the Supreme 
Court, I desire to say something further in this 
place of the regard paid to the security of slavery 
jn the organization of that tribunal. No one joins 
more cordially than I in respectful acknowledg- 
ments of the probity, learning, and ability of the 
distinguished men who occupy its seats. But, 
eminent and upright as they are, they are not 
more than other men exempt from the bias of edu- 
;ation, sympathy, and interest. It was but the 
other day that the honorable Senator from Mis- 
sissippi, [Mr. Davis,] speaking of the adjustment 
of the Texian boundary by this Government, 
said: 

" In referring it to the Senate, Texas referred it to a body 
.»n which at that time ono-half the membt-rs had interests ' 
.ike those she desired to m;unialn. In referring it to the ' 



I Prenident, she referred it to a southern man, who^e educa- 
{ tiori and aisociation wnrr.inted a reliance both on liin in- 
' formation and hiHHympatliiCri." 

What more natural than that gentlemen from the 

' slave States, in view of the questions likely to 

come bcfor'! the Sufiremc Court, whould desire 

that a majority of its mcm!)cr» might " have in- 

terestH like those which they would de.sire to 

maintain.-" Certain it is that some care has been 

, taken to secure auch a coii.ititution of the court, 

I, and not without succes.s. I have prepared a table 

I showing at one view the circuits, the Slates com- 

'i posing them, and the aggregate free population in 

jl each, which I will now submit: 



FREE STATES. 



Second. 
Third .. 
Seventh 



Circuit. 



Fourth. 
Fifth.... 
Sixth.... 

Eighth.. 
Ninth... 



Slates compo«lng it. 

Maine, New Ilanipsliire, MaMachu- 

sett.-', and Rhode Island 

Vermonl,<;onneeticiil,aiid New York 

New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan 

8LAVK STATES. 

States composing it. 

Delaware, Maryland, and \ irginia. . . 

Alabama and Louisiana 

North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Georgia > .' 

Kentucky, Tennessee, and .Missouri. 
I Mississippi and Arkansas 



I Free pop- 
u1aiion< 



l,t;J2,896 
.1,0.'»,847 
2.097,339 
2,883,783 



1,246,572 
52I,3S3 

1, IK? ,110 

l,r)61),163 

2.)8,079 

From this it will be seen that in order to secure 
I a majority from the slave States upon the bench, 
! the circuits are so arranged that, with something 
I le.ss than half of the free population, the slave 
j States have five circuits and fivejudgesout of nine. 
I The smallest of the slave State circuits contains 
little more tlinn one-seventl". ■■ft'": fri nopula'ion 
I of the smallest of the free State circuits; while 
' the largest of the latter contains near twice the 
; number of free inhabitants in the largest of the 
I former. The four southwestern slave States, lying 
] contiguous to each other, arc divided into two cir- 
cuits, whilo the four nortiiweslern free States, with 
. nearly four times the free population, compose but 

■ one. 

\ Mr. President, I have spoken freely of slave 
; State ascendency in the affnirs of this Government, 
' but I desire not to be misunderstood. I take no 
; sectional position. The supporters of slavery are 
the aectionalists, if scctionaliats there are. Free- 
dom is national; slavery only is local and sec- 
tional. I do not complain at nil that the offices of 
' the country have been filled by southern gentle- 

■ men. Let them have the offices, if they will only 
administer the Government in conformity with its 
original princijilcs. But I do complain that it has 
not been so administered; that its powers have 
been perverted to the suppoit of an institution 
which those principles condemn; and that, in con- 
sefjuence of this perversion, we are involved in 
all the difficulties of the strujgle between slavery 
and freedom, in the midst of which Vve now are. 

I shall now proceed still further to illustrate the 
character and results of the .slavery extension 
as contrasted with the slavery restriction policy, 
by a comparison of the piesent condition of Ohio, 
in respect to pop!ilntion,area, and political power, 
with the seven slave States which have come into 



12 



the Union since the date of her admission. I 
ehall submit this comparison in tabular form: 



State. 


Date of 
admission. 


Free pop- 
ulation, 

IS40. 


Area, 
squaie 

ItlilC::. 


Votes 
for Pres. 

and 
V. Pros. 


21 


c 
a 
c 

0) 

m 
2 

2 

2 
2 

2 
2 
2 
2 


£ ^ 
a; > 


Ohio 


Nov. 29, 1802 


1,519,487 


39,694 


328,633 


23 




States 


admitted 


since. 




4 
4 

7 
5 
1 
1 
2 




Lou. 

Miss. 

Ala. 

Wo. 

Ark. 

Fla. 

Tex. 


April 8, 1812 
Dec. 10,1817 
Dec. 14,1819 
Aug. 10,1821 
June 15, 1836 
Mar. 3,1845 
Dec. 29, 1845 


183,959 
180,440 
337,224 
^5,462 
77,639 
54,477 
104,145 


46,431 
47,147 
50,732 
67,380 
52,198 
59,268 
148,.569 


33,653 
51,376 
61,845 

72,748 
16,888 
7,777 
12,535 


6 
6 

. 9 

3 
3 

4 


Asgreg 


ate of Slates. 


1,253.336 


471,715 


236,822 


24 


14| 38 



These are the results. Ohio was admitted into 
the Union in 1802. She had, in 1840, upon an 
area of not quite forty thousand square miles, a 
free population of more than a million and a half, 
and three hundred and twenty-eight thousand vo- 
ters. Seven slave States have been admitted since. 
They had, in 1840, making the proper deduction 
from the enumeration of Texas in 1847 given in 
the table, upon an area nearly twelve times greater 
than that of Ohio, a quarter of a million less in- 
habitants, and ninety thousand fewer voters. And 
yet these States, having, in addition to their free 

Eopulation, a representative population of four 
undred and fifty-six thousantJ slaves, have three 
votes more in the House of Representatives, twelve 
votes more in the Senate, and fifteen votes more 
in the electoral college. Such are the fruits lOf 
slavery extension — less population, larger area, 
and more political power. 

And now, Mr. President, let me ask what have 
been the results, on a larger scale, of the subver- 
eion of the ^rigiiat policy of slavery restriction 
and discouragement, and the substitution, in dis- 
regard of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, 
of the opposite policy r Why, sir, instead of six 
slave States — for I do not reckon among the slave 
States New York or New Jersey, in both which 
emancipation was expected in 1787, and soon after 
actually took place — instead of six slave States, 
we have fifteen; instead of a majority ol'free States, 
we have an equal number of slave and free; in- 
stead of seven hundred thousand slaves, we have 
three millions; instead of a property estimate of 
them at ten millions of dollars, we hear ihern rated 
at a thousand millions, and even fifteen hundred 
millions; instead of slavery being regarded as a 
curse, a reproach, a blight, an evil, a wrong, a sin, 
we are now told that it is the most stable founda- 
tion of our institutions; the happiest relation that 
labor can sustain to capital; a blessing to both 
races, the white and the black, the master and the 
slave. 

Sir, this is a great change, and a sad change. 
If it goes on, the spirit of liberty must at length 
become extinct, and a despotism will be estab- 
lished under the forms of free institutions, 

Mr. President, I do not know that any monu- 
ment has been erected over the grave of Jefferson, 
in Virginia. 

Mr. MASON. There is — a granite obelisk. 

Mr. CHASE. I am glad to hear it. No mon- 
umental marble bears a nobler name. '" 

Mr. SEWARD. The inscription is : •* Here 



was buried Thomas Jefferson, Authorof the Decla- 
ration of American Independence, of the Statute 
of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father o' 
the University of Virginia." 

Mr. CHASE. Jt is an appropriate inscription, 
and worthily commemorates distinguished servi- 
ces. But, Mr. President, if a stranger from some 
foreign land should ask me for the monuinent of 
Jefferson, I would not take hitn to Virginia, and 
bid him look on a granite obelisk, however ad- 
mirable in its proportions or its inscriptions. { 
would ask him to accompany me beyond the Al- 
leghanies, into the midst of the broad Northwest, 
and would say to him: 

Si monumentuin quajris-, circuinspice '. 
Behold, on every side, his monument. Thest 
thronged cities, these flourishing villages, these 
cultivated fields; these million happy homes of 
prosperous freemen; these churches, these schools, 
these asylums for the unfortunate and the helpless: 
these institutions of education, religion, and hu- 
manity; these great States, great in their present 
resources, but greater far in the mighty energies 
by which the resources of the future are to be de- 
veloped; these, these are the monuments of Jeffer- 
son. His memorial is over all our western land — 
Our meanei-t rill, our niishlicst river, 
Rolls mingling w ill) his lame lorever. 

But what monument should be erected to those 
whose misapplied talents, energy, and persever- 
ance, have procured, or whose compromising tim- 
idity has permitted, the reversal of the policy of 
Jefferson ? What inscription should commemorate 
the acts of those who have surrendered vast terri- 
tories to slavery; who have disappointed the ex- 
pectations of the fathers of the Republic; whc 
have prepared for our country the dangers and dif- 
ficulties which are now around us and upon us '• 
It is net for me, sir, to say what that inscriptioT 
should be. Let it remain a blank forever., 

Without concluding, Mr. Chase gave way for 
a motion to adjourn; whereupon the Senate ad- 
journed. 



Wednesday, March 27, 1850. 

The Senate having under consideration the re*!- 
olutions submitted by Mr. Clay — 

Mr. CHASE resumed: If, Mr. President, the 
views which I submitted to the Senate yesterday 
are correct, there can be no foundation whatever 
for the doctrine advanced, and somewhat boldly 
of late, that an equilibrium between the slaveholding 
and non-slaveholding sections of our country has 
been, is, and ought to be, an approved feature of our 
political system. No such equilibrium, nothing 
looking towards such an equilibrium, can be found 
in the Constitution, nor in any early action under it. 
It was notthoughtof byanybody. On thecontrary. 
the Constitution was formed for seven free States 
and six slave States, and with full knowledge, on 
the part of those who framed and those who 
adopted it, that provision had been made by 
the Ordinance for the erection of five additional 
free States out of the Northwestern Territory. Ii 
was equally well known that Vermont must soon 
come, and that Maine must ultimately come into 
the Union, and both as free States. Many expected 
also that Kentucky would come in as a free State. 
It is matter of history that a strong effort was made 
in the convention which framed her constitutior 



13 



to provide for the abolition of slavery within her 
limits, nnd ihat this effort came very nearsuccesB. 
On the other iiiind, there is nothinj; in history, so 
far ns I nm aware, wiiich gives the least snpjiort to 
the idea that anyliody wished Citr liie extension of 
slavery beyond tiie limits of the existing Siatco, 
or for the creation of any more new slave Stuica 
within those limits. But, let it he conceded that it 
was anticipated that all the territory west of the 
Alleghanies and south of the Oliio would he formed 
into slave S'ates, just as it has heen, and where 
then would be the equilibrium r P'our ;dave Stales 
— Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ala- 
bama — added to the six existing slave States, 
wodid make but ten; whercaa the seven expected 
free States added to the seven existing free States, 
would make fourteen; thus giving to the free Slates, 
after the division of every inch of territory into 
States, a majority of eight in this Chamber, as 
well as a large majority in the other House. The 
truth is, sir, Ihat this idea of an equilibrium was 
never started until after we began to create slave 
States out of territory acquired from foreign pow- 
ers. It is alien to our original policy, and incon- 
eislent with the interest.^ and the duly of the country. 

Nor, Mr. President, is there any better founda- 
tion for the assertion that slavery and freedom are 
entitled to equal reg.ird in the administration of 
this Government. The argument is, that the 
States are equal ; that each State has an equal right 
with every other State to determine for itself wliat 
shall be the character of its domestic institutions; 
and, therefore, that every right acquired under the 
laws of any State must be protected and enforced 
in the national territories as in the States whose 
laws conferred it. Sir, the argument does not 
warrant the conclusion. It is true that the States 
are equal, entirely, absolutely equal; it is true that 
each State, except where restrained ' y constitu- 
tional provisions, may form its domi stic institu- 
tions according to its own pleasure; but it is not 
true that every right derived from Siate law can 
be carried beyond the State into the territories or 
elsewhere; it is not true, for example, that, if a 
Stale chooses to authorize slaveholdmg within its 
limit.s. Congress is therefore bound to authorize 
slaveholding in the territories. It is no more true 
than that a bank, chartered by the laws of a par- 
ticular State, would have a right under that law to 
esablish branches in the territories, although the 
National Government might be constitutionally in- 
competent to legalize banking. Why, sir, slavery 
depends entirely for its existtnce and continuance 
on local law. Beyond the sphere of the operation 
of such law, no man can be compelled to submit to 
the condition of a slave, except by mere unauthor- 
ized force. 

I come now, Mr. President, to consider, in the 
light of these general principles, the particular 
questions under the consideration of the Senate. 
The honorable Senator from Kentucky has sub- 
milted to us several propositions, which mark out 
a general plan for the settlement of all questions 
growing out of the subject of slavery. I am 
afraid, sir, that the plan will hardly prove compre- 
hensive enough. If we were prepared to adopt 
the whole scheme, who can say that other ques- 
tions and other difficulties will notarise from this 
prolific source of embarrassment and trouble. 

The first proposition of the Senator from Ken- 
tucky relates to the admission of California. It 



is not now a matter of dispute whether Californis 
shall or shall not bendmilted into the Union. That 
question is seiiled. No one doubtn that California 
is lo come in, with the boundaries which nht 
claim.s, and with the consiituiion she ha.Hadopl<d 
i concur cordially in ihi.s decision. Ah a weHterti 
man, I should have preferred the erection of two 
States rather than one, out of the territory ac- 
quired from Mexico oii_ihe Pacific; and I wish 
also, in common with many of the most intelligtni 
citi/.(^ns of California, that her eastern l)oundary 
had been restricted to the range of the Sierra Ne- 
vada. Under existing circumstances, however, I 
desire to sec California come in us she is, without 
rcRtriction and without delay. 

But it is [iroposed to connect the admission of 
California with the general Hcttlement of the sla- 
very question. It is proposeil, also, since the re- 
cent report of a bill for her admission, and of a 
bill providing territorial governments for Utah and 
New Mexico, from the Committee on Territories, 
to give to ihi.s territorial bill precedence over the 
California bill. I am opposed, sir, to both of these 
propositions. I expect no good result in the pres- 
ent state of the country, from the appointment of 
such a committee to devise a general plan of settle- 
ment, in which the admission of California shal 
be included. The appointment of such an omni- 
bus committee would excite alarm, distrust, indig- 
nation, it would not, in my judgment, inspire 
confidence or command respect. The task as- 
signed to it would be an impossible work, and 
membership of it an unenviable distinction. Any 
adjustment that it could devise would be mort 
likely to compromise the conifiromisers than to 
restore tranquillity to the country. I hope thai 
the motion for the appointment of this conamillttt 
may not be pressed. I have observed, indeed, 
with pleasure, some indications that it will not bt 
pursued. 

But it will be insisted that the territorial bill foi 
Utah and New Mexico shall have precedence of 
the California admission bill. That, sir, is an ad 
justment in another form. The design of it it 
palpable enough. It is cjcpected that it will bt 
easier to carry the territorial bill, without any re- 
striction as to slavery, before than after the admis- 
sion of California. I do not know how this may 
be; but, for one, I will not consent to change the 
order in which the bills are reported by the com- 
mittee. The country will regard, and, in my judg- 
ment, will justly regard, any change in that order 
postponing the California bill tothe territorial bill, 
as a concession to the demand for the extension of 
slavery over free territories. No such concession 
can ever receive the sanction of my vote. 

Mr. FOOTE. Will the Senator bear with nit 
for a moment. 

Mr. CHASE. With pleasure. 

Mr. FOOTE. I did not myself hear a remark 
which fell from him sometime since: but I under- 
stand that he is under the impression that I do not 
intend pressing the motion I have made for tlie 
appointment of a committee. 

Mr. CHASE. I said 1 hoped it might not be 
pressed . 

Mr. FOOTE. With the Senator's permission 
I will embrace the opportunity to say , and I w ish it 
to be heard by all the Senators present, or at least 
by those who are favorable to the measure, that 
I had hoped that this day the motion would have 



14 



oeen taken vip and acted on. I am still in hopes 
that, after we get through this discussion, it may 
be acted on, if not to-day, at the earliest possible 
oeriod. I deem it my duty, my most solemn duty, 
*o press the motion most earnestly. 

Mr. CHASE. I am sorry to find, Mr. Presi- 
ient, that I have been under a misapprehension 
*s to the Senator's intention. I do not believe that 
it will be esteemed, in future times, a creditable dis- 
tinction to have been, in the year of grace 1850, a 
member of any committee, by whose interveniion, 
rn- by whose non-intervention, free territory was 
subjected to the blight of fclavery, and unless the 
■■".ommittee is designed to promote this object, I 
5ee no reason why its appointment should be 
urged. 

Mr. President, the next two propositions of the 
Senator from Kentucky relate to the adjustment of 
the Texan boundary, and the assumption by the 
United States of the Texan debt. 

It seems to me, sir, that both these questionshave 
been brought prematurely into this discussion. I 
see no good reason for pressing them at this time 
upon the consideration of the Senate. Texas is 
here. Her Senators are in this Chamber; her 
Representatives are in the other branch of the Na- 
tional Legislature. She is one of the United States. 
It is too late to question the constitutionality of 
her admission. And we might well leave all 
:)uestions connected with the erection of new 
States within her limits, the liability of the United 
States for her debts, and the determination of her 
v/estern and northwestern boundary, to be dispo.sed 
■>f v^hen they arise. Not one of them is important 
now, except that which relates to the boundary 
between Texas and New Mexico; and that should 
be determined in a bill for the government of that 
'.erritory rather than by a resolution, in forced 
:onneclion with distinct matters. But as these 
.questions sr; l:ere, anJ have been made the sub- 
ject of debate by Senators who have preceded me, 
I propose to state my own impressions in regard 
to them. 

And I wish to say, in the first place, that I do 
not doubt the constitutional power of Congress to 
admit Texas. The power to admit new States is 
'-.onferred upon Congress by the Constitution in 
die broadest and most general terms. " New 
States may be admitted by Congre.ss into this 
Union," is the language of the Constitution. 
Statesmen and constitutional lawyers of great emi- 
nence have denied, I am aware, that this power 
was designed to extend to the admission of foreign 
States; but I see no such limitation in the instru- 
ment myself. 

But a power to admit a new State is a very dif- 
ferent thing from a power to covenant for the 
future admission of other States, to be created out 
of the State admitted. In my judgment, the latter 
is as completely beyond, as the former is com- 
pletely within, the powers of Congress. The ques- 
tion of admission must be addressed to the Con- 
gress to which the application for admission is 
made, and must be determined according to its 
:>wn discretion, uncontrolled by any action of any 
preceding Congress. 1 do not say that Congress 
can propose no terms or conditions of admission, 
3r none that will be binding. 1 think otherwise. 
I only say that one Congress cannot, upon the 
admission of one State, bind the discretion of a 
■subsequent Congress in respect to the admission 



of other new States. This seems to me too plain 
for argument; but let me add a single illustration. 
Suppose Congress, upon the admission of a State, 
should agree that as soon as any district within it 
should contain five thousand inhabitants, it should 
be admitted as a State: would that stipulation bind 
a future Congress .' I think not. 

I am very far, therefore, from concurring in the 
views of the honorable Senator from Massachu- 
setts in regard to the obligation to admit new slave 
States out of Texas. I confess, sir, that I was 
somewhat surprised by the argument which he 
addressed to us. I was aware that no one had more 
zealously opposed the admission of Texas than 

I that distinguished Senator. In his strongest Ian- 
!i guage — and no man uses stronger language — he 
;| had denied the constitutionality of the resolu- 

II tions of annexation. After the adoption of these 
!l resolutions, and after compliance with the condi- 
|! tions and acceptance of the guarantees tendered by 
i them, on the part of Texas; when, according to 
I, the argument of the Senator from Georgia, de- 
j livered upon that occasion, the faith of the Gov- 
ij ernment was firmly bound, he had still spoken 
j: and voted against her admission. This determined 
Ij and unyielding opposition was understood to be 
i based not only upon a conviction of the unconsti- 
;! tutionality of the measure, but also upon a fixed 
i and settled hostility to the extension of slavery, 

: and to the increase, in either branch of the iegis- 
i; lature, or in any department of the Government, 

! of the slave power. I was startled, therefore, 
|j when I heard the Senator declare, not only that 

' he regarded the constitutionality of the admission 
j of Texas as a matter adjudged, and not now open 
r to question in any way; but that, when the proper 
I time for the enactment shall arrive, Congress will 

I be bound to admit four new slave States out of 
ii Texas. Sir, I deny this obligation. The history 
;; of those resolutions was known to the country 
;! and known to Texas. It is, and was at the 
ji time, known, and well known, that those resolu- 

i tions could not have been carried except upon the 
! assurance of Mr. Polk, the President elect, that he 
li would adopt thelatterof the alternatives presented 
;; by them, which contemplated negotiation and a 
!: treaty. It is, and was, well known, also, that Pres- 
|l ident Tyler, availing himself of the last days of 
[{ his official power, took the matter out of the hands 
', of the President elect, and adopted the course of 
|l proceeding authorized by the first of those alter- 
jl natives. 

:: Sir, i will go as far as any man to maintain and 
jj uphold the constitutionally plighted f;\ith of the 
jl Government; but when a claim is put forth under 
i resolutions, so adopted and so acted upon, it must 
be shown that the claim is warranted by a fair con- 
jj struction of the stipulation, and it m.ust be shown 
!i further that the stipulation itself is warranted by 
jj the Constitution. We have had too much, quite 
|i loo much of constitutional amendment by legisla- 

1 tion and resolution. 

jl Now, sir, I undertake further to say, that the 
!j guarantee asserted to existby 'hedistinguished Sen- 
1 ator from Massachusetts, " that new States shall 
|l be made out of Texas, and that such Stales as are 

I to be formed out of that portion of it lying south 
i! of 36'' 30' may come in, to the nuinbtr of four, 
ti in addition to the State then in existence, and 
|; admitted by these resolutions," is not to be found 
l! in the resolutions. In the first place, the resolu- 



15 



tione do not Ray that any new Stale "shall " be 
formed out of Texns. They provide thni " nf w 
Slates, nol exceeding four in nunil)er, in addition 
to siiiil S" ite of Texas, and haring svjDhienl popula- 
tion, MA' ' eaftfr, hy the consent oC Hii:d St;i!e, be 
formed ou'. of i(pi> terniory thereof, which «h:»ll be 
entitled to admiN.Jion undtrthf provisions oj the Fed- 
eral Comlitiiliun.^' Where is thai absolute "sAa//?" 
And what me (he " provisions" r( fcrred lo ? The 
shall does not exist. The provisions are ihcHC : 
" No new State shall be formed within the juris- 
diction of any other State; nor any State be formed 
by the junction of two or more Sinlcs, or partB of 
States, withoiu the consent of ihc Siturs concerned, 
as well as of the Congress." Now, thin iu either 
an absolute prohibition upon the erection of any 
new State within tlie limits of an existing Slate, or 
il is a prohibition of sucli erection without th** con- 
sent of Congress. Il ia, at least, certain, then, 
that the resolutions themselves make the admission 
of States, erected out of Texas, dependent on the 
consent of the Congress in being at the time the 
application may be made. Consent of Congress 
is an important qualification of the asserted guar- 
antee. 1 need say no more on this point. 

I will add only thai, whatever may be the true 
construction of the resolutions, or their obligatory 
force under the Constitution, it is quite certain that 
we are under no obligation to be active at this lime 
in carving a new State out of Texas; and there is 
no great reason for apprehension that Texas will 
soon propose to divide her.self, if Congress does 
not meddle in the matter. 

As to the Texan debt, Mr. President, I am dis- 
posed to leave that where the resolutions of annex- 
ation left il— with Texas. Let Texas keep her 
lands and her debt. That was the sense of Con- 
gress then, and 1 see no reason for any change of 
posiiion. If there are debts for which the United 
Stales are lia'o"le, in uctault of payment Oy Texas, 
let us wail till the default is established, and then 
look into the amounts and grounds of liability , and 
do what justice and good faith require. 

The unadjusted boundary of Texas presents 
other but not' very difficult questions. The reso- 
lutions of annexation do not provide for the ad- 
mission, as a State, of the entire Republic of 
Texas with the boundaries claimed by her. This 
is the language of the resolutions: " Congress doth 
consent that the territory properly included within 
and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, 
may be erected into a new State, to be called the 
State of Texas." All questions of boundary are 
reserved, subject lo adjustment by the Governmeni 
of the United States. The simple question, thrn, 
is: What territory was " properly included within 
and rightfully belonging to" Texas, as an inde- 
pendent republic, prior lo annexation ? Two 
Eropositions respecting this matter seem lo me to 
e clear. First, all the territory between the 
Nueces and the Sabine, and extending north to 
the Red River and the Ensenada, comprehending, 
according to the report of the Commissioner of the 
Land Office, 148,569 square miles, beins: four and 
a half times as large as Ohio, was properly included 
within and did rightfully btlong to Texas at the 
date of annexation, and is therefore properly com- 
prehended within the rew Slate; secondly, none of 
that territory north of a line drawn from Paso del j 
Norte to the Ensenada, and with that stream lo I 
Red river, known as New Mexico or the Santa Fc I 



country, was properly included within or did right- 
fully belong lo Texas at ihul dale, and none of it 
therefoit; was a iiarl of the Texas admitted into th* 
Union. 

Tlic territory between the Nuece* and ihe Rio 
vjrrande.Hnd south of Paso and the Ensenada, may 
be regarded as open to cuntrovertiy. Petitions 
hnve bec!i presented in this Chamber, aince ihe 
commencement of the HeH<iion, from a portion of 
the inhabitants, declaring their conviction thai tiie 
country ii not v/ithin the rightful limits of Texas, 
and a. king for a territorial government. Another 
portion recognize the juriidiclion of Texas. We 
need take no action at present, but may await 
further information and future eventJ*. 

Some reliaiiCK has been placed on Diiillirnell'i> 
map, a copy of wliich in annexed lo the treaty with 
Mexico, as showing all the icrritorv cast of the 
Rio Grande lo be within the limit.'. of'lVxas. That 
map is now before me, and also an Earlier map, 
iVom the s" le plate, publinhed in 1844, by While. 
Gallagher, nri White. Upon this latter map tht 
territory b*" ;en the Nuece:< and the Ilio Grande, 
and north ol the Ensenada, is ri|>rc«enied as con- 
stituting parts of Tamaulipas, Couhuila, and New 
Mexico, or Santa Vi. DislurneU's map was pub- 
lished in 1847. The plate was altertd in con- 
formity with information obtained fioin the depart- 
ments of the Government here. The line of the 
Nueces is marked as the " original boundary of 
Texas ill 1835." The Rio Grande, below the mouth 
of the Pucrco, is marked as the " boundary claimed 
by the United States. " Tamaulipas no longer ap- 
pears lo extend across the lower Rio Grande to 
the Nueces. Rut Coahuila still extends across 
the river; and above Paso del Norte and the Ense- 
nada, the whole country is desienate I " Nuevo 
Mejico, 6 Santa Fe. " I see not what aid the 
claim of Texas can derive fiorn this map, which 
i certainly contains no language on iia tace whicVi 
, will sustain it, and wliich is referred to m the 
treaty only to fix the western and southern bound- 
aries of New Mexico, wesl of the Rio Grande. 
! Il is said also that the Untied States, hnvine beci. 
constituted the arbiter between Mexico and Texas 
by the resolutions of annexation, and having be- 
come possessed of the territory in dispute by con- 
quest or purchase, is estopped from denying the 
claim of Texas. Is this .so.' Lei me put a case. 
Two neighbors dispute about their boundary, and 
refer the question to nn arbiter. Pending thecon- 
troversy, the arbiter buys the interest of one. Is 
he, therefore, bound to concede the tract in dispute 
to the other.' Clearly not. He has acquired the 
title of one, and, with it, whatever rights bia 
grantor possessed. And it is now his business lo 
adjust the controversy fairly and pe-iceably, if he 
can; if nol, lo refer it lo another arbiter. 

In my judgment, therf-fore, our plain duty at 
present is, to provide a territorial government for 
New Mexico, which should embrace within its 
juri.-^diction the whole country north of Paso and 
the Ensenada. But it does nol seem to me indis- 
pensably important ihat the precise Innii.s of iie 
jurisdiction should be defined. The valley of the 
Rio Grande is the only part which ia ii present 
peopled, except by Indiai s, and the ( uly part, 
therefore, which urgently requires an e&talilished 
government. The territory between ihe Nuecee 
and the Rio Grande, south of the line of New 
Mexico, can belefiopen to future adjustment, uporJ 



16 



iurlher iiifonaalicMi as to the views of the people 
diid the rights of Texas. 

Mr. President, the fifth, sixth, and eighth reso- 
lutions of the Senator from Kentucky embrace j 
three propositions, which I propose to consider to- 
e;ether. 

1. Thai slavery in this District should not be j 
abolished, exceptwith the consent of the District 
and of Maryland, 

2. That the slave trade in this District ought to | 
be abolished. 

3. That Congress has no power to prohibit the 
slave trade among the States. 

I concur fuily in the second of these proposi- 
tions, and thpnk the honorable Senators from Ken- 
tucky [Mr. Clay] and from Alabama [IVIr. King] 
for the I'avor they have shown to this measure. 

I cannot concur in the first proposition. I have 
aireadj' said that, in my judgment, the Constitu- 
tion confers on Congress no power to enforce the 
fibeolute subjection of one man to the disposal of 
another man as property. It is my opinion that 
all legislation adopted or enacted by Congress for 
enforcing that condition ought to be repealed, 
whether in this District or elsewhere. I listened 
with great pleasure to the emphatic declaration of 
ihe Senator from Kentucky, in respect to the ex- 
tension of slavery by Congress, that he would give 
'•' no vote to propagate wrongs r" What wrongs? 
Why, sir, those wrongs, multiplied and compli- 
cated, which are summed up in one word — Sla- 
very. And where is the warrant for this compre- 
hensive condemnation of slavery? It is found in 
ihat LAW — to assert the supremacy of which here 
seems to seme so censurable — that law of sublimer 
origin and more awful sanction than any human 
code, written in ineffaceable characters upon every 
heart of marij which condemns all injustice and all 
oppression as a violation of that injunction which 
•.ommands us to do unto others as we would that 
^Uhers should do unto us. 

If the Senator from Kentucky was right — and 
■who did not feel that he was right ? — in saying that 
he would give no vote to propagate ivrongs, am I 
fjot righ: in saying that 1 will give no vote to per- 
pelVMte tcrongs '.' Sir, I will give no vote for the 
perpetua'-ion oi* continuance of slavery in this Dis- 
trict. 1 deny any implied obligation to the people 
of Maryland to continue slavery here as long as 
it is continued there. No evidence can be pro- 
duced of any such an understanding. The state of 
public sentiment in Maryland and in Virginia at 
».he time of the cession warrants the belief that the 
understanding and expectation, if there was any, 
was very different frotti that supposed. But, 
whatever the understanding or expectation may 
have been, our duty seems to me plain. The 
power of exclusive legislation over this District is 
confided to us. We are bound to use it so as to 
establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty 
for all within its reach. 

I was surprised, Mr. President, by the propo- 
eition that Congress has no power to prohibit the 
slave trade between the States. Why, sir, that 
trade is prohibited now, except upon certain con- 
ditions. It is prohibited in vessels of less capacity 
than forty tons. Not a slave can be shipped coast- 
wise without a permit from an officer of the United 
States; not a slave shipped can be landed without 
such a permit. Any one who will take the trouble 



to consult the act of 1807 will see how this matter 
stands. I da not think that law unconstitutional. 
The Constitution confers on Congress power " to 
regulate comrnerce among (he several States." 
Congress exercised this power in enacting that 
law. If they miglit enact that, they may enact 
others. If they can prohibit the trade in vessels 
of less than forty tons, they can prohibit it in ves- 
sels of one hundred, five hundred — altogether. 
And why should not Congress prohibit this traffic? 
We hear much of the cruelty of the African slave 
trade. Our laws denounce against those engaged 
; in it the punishment of death. Is it less cruel, less 
deserving of punishment, to tear fathers, mothers, 
j children, from their homes and each oilier, in 
j Maryland and Virginia, and transport them to the 
1 markets of Louisiana or Mississippi ? If there be 
I a difference in cruelty and wiong, is it not in favor 
! of the African and against the American slave 
I trade? Why, then, should we be guilty of the 
! inconsistency of abolishing that by the sternest 
i prohibition, and continuing this under the sanction 
i of national law? 

f The seventh proposition of the Senator from 
I Kentucky contemplates more effectual provision 
: for the extradition of fugitive slaves. 

1 was sorry to hear the Senator from Massa- 

I chusetts say, the other day, that he proposed to 
support the bill on this subject, with the amend- 

[! ments to it, reported from the Judiciary Commit- 

II tee, " with all its provisions, to their fullest ex- 
jtent." I ask Senators, who propose to support 
|i that bill, where they find the power to legislate on 
,' this subject in the Constitution? I know to what 
j clause 1 shall be referred, I know I shall be told 
!' that the Constitution provides that " no person 
il held to service or labor in one State, under the 
i! laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in con- 
! sequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 

^ charged from such service or labor, but ahaii be 
(I delivered up on claim of the party to whom such 
j service or labor may be due." But this clause 
' contains no grant of legislative power to Congress. 
:{ That power is conferred exclusively by special 
1 1 clauses, granting legislative power in respect to 
[particular subjects, and by the eighth section of 
; the first article, which, after enumerating the spe- 
i cific powers of Congress, proceeds to declare that 
I Congress shall have power " to make all laws 
I which shall be necessary and proper for carrying 
ji into execution the foregoing powers, and all other 
j powers vested by this Constitution in the Govern- 

I raent of the United States, or in any department 
ij or officer thereof." 

Nov/, sir, what power is vested, by the clause, 
;i in relation to fugitives from service, in theGovern- 
'1 meiit, or in any department or officer of the Gov- 
ji ernment? None at all; and if none, then the 
Ij legislative power of Congress does not extend to 
l! the subject. The clause is a clause of compact. 
ji It has been so denominated by every Senator who 

II has had occasion to speak of it. The honorable 
1| Senator from Massachusetta told us that he 
I' " always thought that the Constitution addressed 
!j itself to tlie Legislatures of the States, or to the 
ij States themselves; that he had always been of the 
ii opinion that it was an injunction upon the States 
Ij themselves." If this opinion be correct, the 
il power of legislation and the duty of legislation 
i| must be with the States, and not with Congress. 

II Mr, BUTLER. I interrupt the Senator merely 



17 



with a view to obtain what 1 regard as im- 
portant to the consideration of this mutter. If ! 
some of the States who are parlies to this com- [ 
pact refuse to pass such laws as will fulfill tlieir 
oi)liKalionB, where is the remedy ? 

Mr. CHASE. I know of no remedy. None 
has been provided by the Constitution. But let 
me put a question to the Senator from South Caro- 
lina. The Constitution provides amon;^ these 
articles of compact, of which the stipulation in 
res:ard lo fugitives from service is one, that " the 
citizen."? of each State shall be entitled to all privi- 
leges and immunities of cili.'.ens in the several 
States.'' Now, I ask ilic Senator if he admit.", 
that, under that clause. Congress has power to 
provide penalties for the imprisonment of colored 
citizens of Massachusetts in the ports and under 
the Ir.ws of South Carolina ■ 

Mr. BUTLKR. 1 lake ihc broad ground that 
each State has a right to prescribe iia own qual- 
ifications of citizenship. In all the old acts of 
Congress the class of persons referred to by the ■ 
Senator are spoken of as persona of color as con- 
tra distinguished from citizens. I believe it is in the j 
power of every Slate to make a full citizen of | 
a black man, but not to make him a full citizen of 
any other State. The definition of a citizen in 
South Carolina is not governed by what may be 
the detiniiion of a citizen in another State. I be- 
lieve that each State can determine the quaiifica- ^ 
tions of voters, and control as it pleases the rights 
of different classes of persons. But the Senator 
has not answered or met the question 1 have asked, 
and that is, in case a State refuses to carry out the 
provisions of the article in llie Constitution, where 
is the power to compel it to do so- 

Mr. CHASE. I certainly answered the Sena- 
tor distinctly and candidly. 1 said 1 knew of no 

its stipulations. The obligation of the compact, 
and the extent of the compact are, as in every 
other case of treaty stipulation, matters which ad- 
dress themselves exclusively to the good faith and 
sound judg'iient of the parties to it. But did the 
Senator answer my question ' He has not told us 
whetiier, in hisjudgment, the General Government 
lias power to enforce that constitutional comf)act 
which guaranties to the ciiizeiis of each State the 
rights of citizens in all the States. He has told 
us thai each State deiermine.s for itself who shall 
be i'.j citizens. I grant it. He says one State 
ranno: determine who shall be a citizen of another. 
That may be so. But when a State has once de- 
termined who its own citizens shall be, the com- 
pact stipulates that they shall have the privileges 
of citizens in every other State. Not that they 
shall ht citizen.s — not that they shall he admitted 
to the elective franchise, or be made eligible to 
otfice: but that they shall have those rights and 
immunities, that seciwity and that protection to 
whicii citizens generally, male or female, minors 
or aduits, are entitled. My question was, Has 
the General Government, in the Judgment of the 
Senator, power under the Constitution to enforce 
the performance of this stipulation in South Caro- 
lina: 

But I have been drawn aside from the line of 
argument I intended to pursue. 

I repeat, Mr. President, that this clause in rela- 
tion !•• fugitives from service is a clause of com- 
pact. For many years after the adoption of the 



Constitution it was so regarded. It was not much 
discussed, and the limits of the respcclivo powers 
of the State and Federal Governments under il 
were not very accurately settled. But nearly all 
the Slates legiHlaled under it, and provided such 
provisinn.H for the extradition of fugitives aa they 
deemed roiisiMient with the security of the [ler- 
sonal rights of their own inhabitants. At length, 
however, the I'rigg decision was made, which 
asserted the exclusive right and duty of Congress 
to IcgiHiate on this subject, and denied that right 
and duty to the States. The same decision sug- 
gested, what every one here will admit, that Con- 
giesfi could not require Statu officers to intervene 
in the business of extradition. It need surprise 
no one that after this the States ceased to enact 
extradition laws, or that some of them repealed 
those they had before enacted, and prohibited the 
intervention of their oflicers. 

But, sir, a decision of the Suprepie Court can- 
not alter the Constitution. If Congress had no 
power to lesislate on this subject before the de- 
cision. Congress' has none now. The decision 
determined the case before the court. It estab- 
lished a precedent for the determination of such 
cases. It must stand till overruled. But 1 do not 
see how any Senator who finds himself unable, 
after the fullest consideration, to concur in the 
principle of the decision, can justify liimself in the 
exercise of a power which he does not believe the 
Constitution ha.? conferred. 

What, sir, is the history of this clause and the 
clauses of like character which stand with il in the 
Constitution.- This clause was taken from the 
ordinance of 1787. In the ordinance no one pre- 
tends that it was anything more than an article of 
compact. No power was derived from il to tte 
Government. Three other clauses of the "ame 
1iStuTe-'arrfcui7(niTlire's5iSTe'aiYA,fe o\ ' 
tution: one stipulating for the extradii.' 
lives from justice; another stipulating .'.v. :* 
citizens of each State shall have the immunities c ' 
citizens in all the ether States ; and a third stipula- 
ting that full faith and credit shall be given in 
each State to the public acts, records, and judicial 
proceedin:;s of every otherStaie. All these clauses 
are taken from the Articles of Confederation, where 
they stood as articles of compact, binding the 
good faith of the States, but conferring no power 
on the Government. Can a good reason be given 
by any one why they should have a different oper- 
ation in the Constitution? It seems evident that 
the framers of the«Constitution did not suppose 
that the General Government could enforce the 
execution of these clauses, or any of them, with- 
out special provision. For, coupled with the 
clause respecting records, we find a special power 
I conferred on Congress to " prescribe, by general 
! laws, the manner in which the record shall be 
' proved, and the effect thereof." This grant of a 
special power in respect to records, and this omis- 
' sion to grant any power in respect to the other 
subjects", afford the strongest pos.sible implication 
j that the Constitutional Convention did not design 
; to grant any such power. Had the grant of the 
i special power as to records been omitted, that 
I clause would have been a stipulation precisely like 
1 the other clauses, and having the same effect; no 
'■ more, no less; no narrower, no broader. It would 
' hove been binding on the States; but no power 
' could have been derived from it to Congress. To 



18 



enable Congress to legislate, a special grant was 
necessary. The omission of any special grant of 
power to legislate upon the subject-matter of the 
other clauses must, then, have been designed, 
and must have been intended as a denial of such 
power. 

Are Senators prepared to adopt the broad prop- 
osition upon which the Supreme Court rested and 
were obliged to rest the assertion of the power to 
legislate on the extradition of fugitives, namely, 
that whei-ever the Constitution confers a right or 
enjoins a duty, a power arises to the Federal Gov- 
ernment to enforce the right or compel the per- 
formance of the duty ? Are they prepared to 
carry this doctrine into its practical results? Is it 
not obvious that it will open a new and very 
copious source of powers to the General Govern- 
ment; and that it must tend to the subversion of 
the rights of the States and the establishment of a 
consolidated central pov/er, dangerous to their 
independence and sovereignty? 

[ have said, Mr. President, that the several 
clauses providing for the extradition of fugitives 
from justice, and fugitives from service, and for 
the security in all the States of the rights of the 
citizens of each State, are in the nature of treaty 
stipulations, to be carried into eilect by the appro- 
priate action of the State governments. What 
that action should be is for the State govern- 
ments to determine. It is for them to ascertain 
the true import of the terms of the compact, and 
to provide for its execution by such legislation as 
will guard equally the just rights of all parties. 
But, sir, those States who claim the perJormance 
of the compact from their sister States must see lo 
it that they perform it themselves. A State which 
imprisons, without pretence of crime, the citizens , 
of another State, cannot demand, with a good 

grnS;,'ufe sQrfeUCtr'oi' lugilVvec;,'^ ■' "" "^ ■—■■ — 

But, sir, if it be granted that Congress has the 
power to legislate, are we bound to exercise it? 
We have power, without question, to enact a 
bankrupt law, but no one proposes such a law; 
and, if proposed, no one would feel obliged to vote 
for it, simply becau.se we have power to enact 
it. We have power to declare war, but to de- 
clare v/ar, without just cause, would be, not a 
duty, but a crime. The power to provide by 
law for the extradition of fugitives is not con- 
ferred by any express grant. We have it, if we 
have it at all, as an implied powe.r; and the implica- 
tion which gives it to us, is, to say the least, remote 
and doubtful. We are not tound to exercise it. 
We are bound, indeed, not to exercise it, unless 
with great caution, and with careful regard, not 
merely to the alleged right sought to be secured, 
but to every other right which may be affected by 
it. Were the power as clear as the power to coin 
money or regulate commerce, still it should not be 
exercised to the prejudice of any right which the 
Constitution guaranties. We are not prepared, I 
hope, and I trust we never shall be prepared, to 
give the sanction of the American Senate to the bill 
and the amendments now upon our table — a bill 
which authorizes and requires the appointment 
of two hundred and sixty-one commissioners, and 
an indefinite number of other officers, to catch run- 
away slaves in the Stale of Ohio; which punishes 
humanity as a crime; which authorizes seizure 
without process, trial without a jury, and con- 
signment to slavery beyond the limits of the State 



without opportanity of defiance, and upon ex parit 
testimony. Certainly no sach bill can receive my 
vote. 

It is further i.rop'>se(i;, Mr. PresideiU, by tue 
Senator from Kentucky, to establish governments 
for the territories acquired from Mexico, withou: 
any prohibition of slavery. He proposes also to 
declare by resolution that slavery does not novif 
exist in tliose territories, and is not likely to be 
introduced into them. 

Mr. President, nu question has been more dis- 
cussed of late years than this of the territorial pro- 
hibition of slavery. Upon the rostrum, in legisla- 
tive halls, in the street, by the fireside, everywhere, 
it has been a topic of debate, appeal, and conver- 
sation. From the moment that it became evident 
that the Mexican war must result in vast accessions 
of domain, an earnest desire, which soon matured 
into fixed determination, was manifested by r 
large majority of the American people that slavery 
should be forever excluded from the new acquisi- 
tions. It was honorable to the northern Democracy 
that the first proposition to impress forever, upon 
the soil of the new territory, the signature and seat 
of freedom, came from a northern Democrat, dis- 
tinguished for fidelity to Democratic principles, 
and was received with t'avor by the great body of 
his political associates. It was equally honorable 
to northern Whigs that they were not deterred by 
its Democratic origin from giving to the Proviso of 
Freedom a generous and general support. It was 
a revival, after the lapse of sixty-two years, of the 
territorial policy of Jefferson, and, however it may 
now serve particular ends to depreciate or deride 
it, the country wii! at last do justice to the measure 
and its author. 

During the last Presidential canvass, it was hard 

Co iliiu in tZ»v^ »il:.c. .wvf**c»b \Xi:)^\^ I-' ^ v> . . .- • 1 1 ^. w.^*.v>t^ 

prohibition. The people had considered the sub- 
ject, and had made up ther minds. There was no 
need, therefore, of acgument to establish the cor- 
rectness of the principle or the necessity of the 
measure. The only contest was upon the ques- 
tion, whose election was most certain to secure the 
exclusion of slavery from the territories. 

On the Whig side, it was urged that the candi- 
date of the Philadelphia Convention was, :f not 
positively favorable to the proviso, at least pledged 
to leave the matter to Congress, free from Execu- 
tive influence, and ready to approve it when enacted 
by that body. Great stress, therefore, was laid 
upon the selection of Representatives and Senators 
devoted to this great measure; and it was asserted 
that if a majority of the members of the House 
and a Vice President, holding tiie casting vote in 
this body, could be elected favorable to the provi.so. 
the freedom of the territories would be secure. 

It happened that the distinguished statesman. 
who received the nomination of the Baltimore Con- 
vention for the Chief Magistracy, had writteii p. 
letter shortly before that event, in which he avowed 
a change of opinion in regard to the proviso, 
which had resulted in a conviction that Congress 
had no constitutional power to enact it. Notwith- 
standing this letter, many of his friends in the free 
States persisted in asserting that he would not, if 
elected, veto the proviso; many also insisted that he 
regarded slavery as excluded from the territories 
by the Mexican laws still in force; while othere 
maintained that ne regarded slavery as an uistitu- 



9' 



19 



tion of positive law, and Con^rrsH n.i constitution- 
ally incompetent to enact such law, and held, 
therefore, that it was imnossilile for slavery to gel 
into the territories, whether Mexican law was in 
force or not. It was claimed acooidin;;ly wiili 
great confidence that, in the event of the elecrioii 
of that eminent citizen, slavery would lie as efliect- 
ually excluded from the territories by the action 
of the Administration as it could possibly lie by 
the proviso. 

Not satisfied with the positions or the nomina- 
tions of either of these candidates, a {rreatbody of 
Independent Democrats, Progressive Whigs, and 
Liberty men, united upon a platform of Demo- 
cratic principles and meusurea, under the banner 
of Free Democracy, in support of a Democratic 
statesman who had already been honored with the 
Chief Magistracy, and whose opposition lo the 
extension of slavery, and cordial approval of the 
great measure of prohibition which had received 
a sanction so unanimous from the people, was 
well known and undoubted. 

Well, sir, professions of devotion lo Free-Soil 
principles, liberally and even prodigally made by 
the supporters of the Philadelphia and Baltimore 
nominees, reinforced by party discipline and party 
attachments, so far prevailed with the people that ' 
the nominee of the Free Democracy received only 
about three hundred thousand votes. 

As between the other candidates, the argument 
addressed to ihe jieople by the friends of the Phil- 
adelphia nomination was in substance tliis: pro- < 
hibition is essential to the certain exclusion of ' 
slavery from the territories; if the Democratic can- 
didateshall be elected, prohibition is impossible, for 
the veto will be used, if the Whig condidate shall 
be elected, prohibition is certain, provided you 
elect n Congress who will carry oul your will; 
s"vani"t6Tobk for lis exclusion trotii them Except ; 
y positive law. It has been repeatedly stated by 
gentlemen from the slave Stales, in the course of j! 
this debate, that hothing prevented slave emigra- 
tion to California except the anti-slavery agitation; 
and the dread of the proviso. ! 

Mr. President, there are some Senators who 
place no reliance on configuration, or climate, or 
other physical conditions for the exclusion of sla- 
very, but Feem to rely with some degree of confi- 
dence on the Mexican law to secure that object. 
I do not concur in this reliance. The Mexican 
law remaining in force in the territories, should i 
secure, in my judgment, the freedom of all the in- 
habitants at the date of acquisition. In my judg- 
ment, also, neither the Government of the United 
States, nor any territorial government is, or can 
be constitutionally authorized to institute slavery, ' 
any more than a monarchy, or a national religion, I 
or the inquisition. But, sir, I know very well ; 
that ?v1exican law can be changed as soon as a ter- 
ritorial leirislature is established; and 1 know, 
also, that my view of theconstitutioral limitations 
upon the power of this Government and of terri- 
torial governments, in respect to their competency \ 
to establish and maintain slavery, is not acknowl- i 
e'is'ed a."^ correct by the statesmen and jurists of 
the slave States. Give me an administration of 
this Government fully imbued with this view — 
heartily favorable to the perpetuation and exten- 
sion of human freedom, and heartily opposed to 
the perpetuation and extension of human slavery, 
and I would notask for any legis'ative prohibition. 



[lolicy and the early preccdentB of the Govcrrmient, 
and which onrt received the uiuinimouH sanciiop 
of the enlire South, run now juMily be regarded as 
oft'ensive by that pection of the cfiuntry. If it was 
right and acceptable to abolish txiHtinET cliurry, 
hik! (irohibit tuiure .slavery in the Northwestern 
Territory in 17H7, the prohiiiition of the exienitiop. 
of slavery into the territory acquired from Mexic", 
where no slave now cxistH, ciinnol be just cause 
of ollVnce in 1H;")0. .Vl all events, Hir, we must do 
our duly. We .should not, we muHl not. be 
moved from it Ijy any a|>|ieal addresfcd to sym- 
pathy and not to judgment. 

But we arc told, also, that the proviso m unne- 
cessary; and this, too, by the honorable Senator 
from MafisachusetlH, who, U-bh than two years 
ago, without reservation or qualification, declared 
his full adhesion to its " whole doctrine." Then 
there was great danger, in hi.s judgment, that 
slavery would find entrance into the territories, if 
the Democratic candidate should be elected; for in 
that event, prohibition would be out of the ques- 
tion. Now it is discovere<l that prohibition is un- 
necessary ! Slavery is excluded — so the Senator 
informs us — from California and New Mexico 
" by the law of n.nture, of |)hysical geography, the 
law of the formation of the earth." And he tells 
ua he would •' not take pains to reaffirm an ordi- 
nance of Nature, nor to recnact the will of Gcd." 
I wish, Mr. President, that the honorable Sena- 
tor had told us that in 1848. I wish that the peo- 
ple could then have heard something of this law 
of nature, of physical geography, of the formation 
of the earth, which makes the territories acuuired 
from Mexico forever inaccessible to slavery. I 
cannot help thinking that the result of the election 
would have been somewhat different if these views 
had been then understood to find favor with the 
not see that he dilters widely, or at all, as to IhTs^ 
matter, from the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Beu- 
RiEV,] or the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. King.] 
1 need not say that I wholly dissent from it. 

In the midst of this variety of opinion, and 
under the circumstances which surround us, when 
it is well known that nearly every Senator from 
the slave States insists that slavery should be per- 
mitted in the territories, and most of them expect 
that, if [lermitted, slavery will be introduced there, 
it seems to me worse than oitlinary folly for those 
who really desire its exclusion to reject the sim- 
ple, and obvious, and certain preventive of prohi- 
bition. That we have the power to prohibit is 
clear, if we have any power to legislate for the 
territories at all. That we have the power to le- 
gislate I shall not pause to argue, i know of but 
one Senator who denies it; and even that distin- 
guished gentleman, [Mr. Cass,] though he cannot 
find power to establish territorial governments, 
declares himself ready to assume it, on the ground 
of necessity. If he is willing to assume that 
power, it is diflicult to see why he should not be 
willing, in exercising that power, to establish 
governments upon principles which will secure 
I to every individual under them the blessings of 
personal liberty. For myself, I cannot doubt 
upon the subject. The power to provide govern- 
ments for the territories, and to prescribe just 
limits to their action, is clearly given by the Con- 
stitution. It has been exercised under every Ad- 
ministration, and by nearly every Congress, since 
the organization of the Government. Whatever 



20 



Mexican law; and where there is compulsory 
servitude for debt, lifelong and inevitable, chattel- 
^ slavery is not far off, if the law will permit it. 
But if peoniam were not there to warn us what 
may be expected if slavery be not prohibited, 
could we, as rational legislators, find an excuse in 
the physical circumstances of the country for 
abandoning the proviso .- It is said to be "Asiatic 
in formation and scenery." Are there no slaves 
in Asia? But the soil is cultivated by " irriga- 
tion." Well, sir, will the fact, if it be a fact, 
that the sun shines from a cloudless sky, and 
waters to refresh the earth must be drawn from 
the streams which snow-capped hills supply: will 
this exclude slavery ? But the lands are poor. 
Sir, who knows that? Much of the vast region 
over which we are to extend territorial govern- 
ments is wholly unexplored. In other parts there 
is, as everywhere else, good land and poor land. 
Certainly there are mines, and in no employment 
has slave labor been more commonly or more 
profitably used. 

Let us take care that we do not deceive our- 
selves, or mislead others. Neither soil, nor cli- 
mate, nor physical formation, nor degrees of lati- 
tude, will exclude slavery from any country. Can 
any gentleman name a degree of latitude beyond 
which slavery has not gone ? or any description of 
country to which it has not, at some time, found 
access? It is acknowledged, and has been for 
years acknowledged, to be unprofitable in several 
of the existing States; and yet, no State, except 
New York and New Jersey which obeyed the 
impulse of the Revolution and of its doctrines, 
has abolished slavery since the organization of 
this" Government. The truth is, that so long as a 
powerful and active political interest is concerned 
in the extcnsj^^i of slavery into new territories, it 
vote, tnerefore, lor the v>rhig~cahtlidate.~ 

This argument, doubtless, had its weight. At 
all events, the people acted upon the theory which 
it suggested. They did their part. They elected 
the Whig candidate. They instructed, through 
the State Legislatures, one half the Senators to 
vote for the great measure of prohibition; they 
elected a Vice President recommended to them as 
unequivocally and heartily in favor of it; and they 
placed in the House of Representatives a decided 
majority pledged to its support. 

What then? We came here; and, sir, it does 
seem to me that when we get here we are apt to 
forget that there is a people, and that we have 
coNsriTCENTs. We seem to be more desirous 
to reach results which will satisfy controlling in- 
fluences here, than to meet the just expectations 
of those whose representatives we are. Why, sir, 
every one knov.'s that at the commencement of this 
session, there was a decided and apparently fixed ' 
majority in the other branch of Congress, in favor 
of the proviso; and that in this Chamber half or 
nearly half of the members were instructed to vote 
for it. And yet now we are told, and told by 
Senators who but recently were foremost in zealous 
advocacy of this measure, that it is unnecessary, 
and offensive to the South, and should be aban- 
doned. Plans of compromise and arrangement, 
every one of which involves the surrender of this 
great vital principle, are brought forward and ■ 
urged upon us. \ 

I do not understand, sir, how it is that a meas- ; 
are which fully harmonizes with the original ' 



The spirit of such an administration, the judicial 
action which it would secure, and, above all, the 
Constitution so interpreted and enforced, would be 
proviso enough. 

But we have no such administration. On the 
contrary, we know that distinguished gentlemen, 
who are among its most prominent supporters, 
assert and insist that under the Constitution, and 
in virtue of its provision, the Government of the 
United States is as much bound to protect and 
maintain, within national territories, every slave- 
holding emigrant in the full possession, control, 
and disposal of his slaves, as it is to protect and 
maintain any other emigrant in the possession, 
control, and disposal of any species of property 
whatever. In this position leading gentlemen on 
the other side of the Chamber agree with them. In 
other words, they insist that, by the operation of 
the Constitution itself, slavery becaine lawful in 
the territories from the date of the acquisition. 
There is a pretty general concurrence among Sen- 
ators from the slave States of both political parties 
in this position. I should be glad to be assured 
that there are no Senators from the free States 
who concur in it. I regret that the Senator from 
Massachusetts, whom I am sorry not to see in his 
seat to-day, did not see fit, when he addressed the 
Senate lately, to state his views upon this subject. 
If I recollect aright, that dis'inguished Senator, 
when occupying another high position m the Gov- 
|| ernment, in^a diplomatic despatch of great ability, 
I maintained the doctrine that, under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, men might be held as 
I property in American vessels upon the high seas, 
beyond the limits of any State, and this upon the 
ground that such vessels were to be regarded in 
i! the same light as national territory. If the hon- 
1' orable member does in fact hold this opinion, I do 
1 siSpporters of the PliTladelpTTiaTfommatiorv! 
I Sir, this law of nature is not, I suppose, of re- 
I cent origin. It existed in 1848, if it exists at all. 
i The clear vision which can read it now, written 
[ so plainly in the formation of the earth — descend- 
j ing so visibly from the throne of God — discerned 
it, doubtless, then. Why was it not then an- 
nounced ? 

I must be allowed to say, thai in my judgment, 
there is a difference between the full and entire 
commitment to the " whole doctrine" of the pro- 
viso, which the Senator avowed in 1848, and his 
recent declaration that, in a bill for the govern- 
ment of New Mexico, a prohibition of slavery 
would be "an entirely useless, and, in that con- 
I nection, entirely senseless, proviso." Useless 
and senseless, because it would be a reenactment 
of the will of God ! Sir, I should like to know 
what laws we are to enact, if we are not to reen- 
act the will of God? There is another pov;et: are 
j //is the laws which we should reenact? Sir, all 
just legislation must be a reenactment of the Di- 
vine v/ill. The rights of human nature are not 
i derived from human law. Men are " created 
equal;" " they are endowed by their Creator with 
inalienable rights." Aggressions upon these 
rights are crimes. It is the duty of every legisla- 
ture to frame all law with paramount regard to 
[ the prohibition of these aggressions, and the secu- 
rity of these rights. 

1 But, sir, is it quite true that any law of physi- 

: cal geography will protect the new territories from 

the curse of slaverv? Peonism was there under 



21 



differences of opinion there may have been, as to 

the existence or limits of other powers, there hns 
been very little ns to thia. The power to prohibit 
slavery in the territories is, in my judgment, cleur 
and iniii-'i'Utable; mid the duty of exercising it is 
imperaii.t anil sacred. 

But we are lold that if Cony;rcsh: prohibit shi- 
very in the territories, or ubolish shivery and the 
slave trade in this District, or fail to provide ade- 
quate securities for the return of runaway slaves, 
the South will dissolve the Union '. This cry, 
Mr. President, niiiher astonishes nor alarms me. 
I have never thought, nor do i now think, that 
any man should be deterred by it, from an iionest, 
fearless dischar{;c of his duty here It is an old | 
cry, not without profit to those who have used it. 
It was first heard in the Contjrcss of 1774. The | 
student of history who examines the Non-Impori- { 
ation and Non-Exporlation A2;reemcnt of that , 
Congress, will be struck by n singular exception 
in the Non-Exportation Article. I have already 
had occasion to remark that the Agreement itself 
was designed to secure a redress of American 
grievances from the Government of Great Britain 
by a suspension of commercial intercourse. The 
Non-Exportation Article bound the colonies and 
the people not to export any American commodity 
to Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies, with 
this remarkable qualification, "except rice, to Eu- 
rope." How came this exception there ? Why, 
sir, the staple of South Carolina was rice, and the j 
delegates of South Carolina in that first Congress, 
when the struggle with Great Britain was impend- 
ing, and union was all-important to its successful I 
issue, threatened to withdraw from the Congress 1 
and break up the Association, unless South Caro- 
lina could be permitted to export rice and indigo. 1 
Thia proceeding occasioned a suspension of the 
'"^"^u^ uiBBU ' Oi ' t' l ie Ctiigreaa fc t 'c v ro ct Vn^ee iyy^. 

Finally it was determined to complete the Asso- 
ciation without conceding the South Carolina de- 
mand, and thereupon her delegates, except one, 
withdrew. They were invited to return, and a 
compromise was proposed, to allow the exporta- 
tion of rice, but not of indigo. I have consulted 
Pitkin's Statistics, and 1 find that the export of 
rice in 1770 was about one hundred and sixty 
thousand barrels, valued at §1,530,000. 1 find ho 
mention of indigo. Of course the compromise 
was agreed to, and the words " except rice to 
Europe" added to the Non-Exportation Article. 
It was a model for all future compromises. South 
Carolina got what was substantive, and surren- 
dered what was unimportant. This was the fir.it 
utterance of tlie disunion cry, and this was its first 
result.'' 

The Journals of the old Congress inform us that 
in 1783 a resolution was adopted, establishing the 
seat of Government at the Falls of the Delaware. 
Much dissatisfaction was manifested by the South. 
Some persons, it seems, became alarmed, and a 
motion was made to reconsider, in order to fix on 
some place more "favorable to the Union,'' and ap- 
proaching " nearer to that justice which is due to 
the southern States. "| All this termmated m 
another compromise. It was agreed that two seats 
of Government should be established— one on the 
Delaware, and the other on the Potomac. The 



* Am. Arch. 4th Ser., vol. 1, page 1111. 
1 4 Jour. Cong. Coiifed., 288. 



final result was the eBtabliahment, by the action of 
Congress under the Constitution, of the seat of 
Government in tliis District, and the abundonnient 
of the location originally agreed on. 

In the Convention which fronied the Constitution 
the same cry wan heard. South Carolina and 
Georgi.i declared they could not come inio the 
Union unless they could have the privilege of im- 
porting slaves." And, notwithstanding tiic tiense 
of the Convention WHS strong and almost unani- 
mous n^'ainst the traflic, for the sake of the Unioi. 
another compromise was agreed on. Slavery 
was-aJlowedall it demanded for twenty years; after 
which, Congress might suppress the trade if it 
should see fit. 

In 18:i0 the Union was again menaced. The 
cry now was, " admit Missouri as a slave Stale, 
or we will dissolve the Union." Great alarm was 
excited. Proposition.s for compromise were mul- 
tiplied, and the contest finally terminated, as usual, 
by conceding to slavery all it then demanded, with 
aset-o(Tti. freedom in' the prohibition of slavery 
in dll the nrritory acquired from France north of 
36° 30', except that within the limits of the new 
State. 

The same play was enacted in 18.32 and 1833. 
Then the ground of complaint was the tarilT. South 
Carolina pushed her disunion remedy to nulli- 
fication. General Jackson was at the head of 
the Government, unterrified. But in Congress 
great apprehension was manifested, and a desire to 
concede almost everything rather than to risk the 
consequences of a decided course. Another com- 
promise was effected. The protective policy was 
abandoned by its great champion, and a scale of 
reduction of duties adopted, which in ten years 
overthrew the tariff. For one, Mr. President, I 
do not complain of the reduction of duties; but I 
woultl prelcr to see a plan of reio'ciioh adiopied 
calmly, considerately, not under the dictation of 
any cry, but in conformity with a sound and liberal 
• judgment. 

I Well, sir, between 1830 and 1835, the anti- 
' slavery agitation commenced, and soon became 
formidable. Then again we heard the cry of dis- 
union. The demand now was the suppression of 
■ the freedom of speech and the press, and of the 
right of petition; in brief, silence on the subject of 
slavery, and forbearance of all action against it. 
The alternative denounced was dissolution of the 
Union. The agitation, however, was not sup- 
pressed; anti-slavery societies increased and mul- 
tiplied; they made themselves felt everywhere. 
Well, was ihc Union dissolved.' Not at all. It 
stands yet, and will stand, I trust, forever. The 
menace was as earnest, as emphatic, as violent as 
ever, but it came to nothing. It had the same 
termination which would have attended all similar 
preceding menaces, had they been calmly disre- 
garded. 

In 1844 the annexation of Texas was demanded 
by the slave States. It had been a favorite object 
for many years, and it seemed brought within 
their grasp. They became, accordingly, extremely 
urgent, and resorted to the South Carolina specific. 
They raised the cry " Texas or disunion.' The 
distinguished Sena'tor t'rom Missouri, always de- 
voted to the Union, took tiie trouble to direct pub- 
lic attention, in an appendix to a speech of his on 

* 3 Mad. Pap., 1389. 



22 



tne subject of Texas, delivered in that year, to : 
some samples of these threats. They are worth 
looking at now. Well, sir, under these influences, 
in ps.i"f, Texas was brought into the Union. I 
say " ii'. part," becau.'e I am well aAare that other 
iiiflae.ices contiibuted largely to the result; and 
amon^ these influences not the least powerful was 
a generous sentiment of the Democracy of the 
oountry in favor of the extension of the American 
jJnion — a sentiment which made them willing: to 
accept Texas with slavery, and tri\sl to the future 
for her deliverance from that evil and reproach. 

And now, sir, we have the last republicatioa of 
tliis old story. Now we are threatened with dis- : 
solution of the Union unless we will consent to 
what no republican Government ever did consent 
to; what is indirect opposition to the principles 
and spirit of our institutions, and is condemned 
by the earlie.'it and best precedents of our history, 
namely, the extension of slavery into territories 
now free! Shall we yield to this outcry? For , 
oo.e, I f:ay, never! In my judgment, it is time to 
pause VVe have yielded point after point; we 
have crowded concession on concession, until ; 
duty, honor, patriotism, shame, demands that we 
should stop. 

But we are told, almost with the tone of taunt, 
that the free States have had the rfiajority all this ; 
time in one branch of Congress at least, and in the 
electoral college, and, therefore, that whatever re- 
.sponsibility there may have been in making these 
concessions to slavery, it is ;opon them. It is well 
to remind us of this. The f4-ee States have had the 
majority: and the victories of slavery have been 
won by their divisions. .Tohn Randolph said, long 
ago, '• We of the South are always united andean 
afways unite; while you of the North divide. We 
'lave conquered you once, and we can and we will 
.^sJiTcjlW fiSii Sgsiii.' - jLTi€sS^TiC-& s€civcaCsS~fttSiC€ 
a history. 

I do not say, and I do not mean to say, that there 
has been but one political party in the slave States; 
but that, in these States, fidelity to the interests of 
Slavery has always been, in both parties, an indis- 
oensibie condition of support for high public sta- 
tion; and that great numbers, in either party, have 
always been ready io support a candidate of oppo- 
site general politics, if undoubted on this question, 
rather than a candidate of like general politics at 
all suspected of disfavor to slavery. No candidate 
known to be in favor of placing the legitimate in- 
iluence of this Government actively and decidedly 
on the side of freedom, could receive the support 
of either party. It is by thi.s unity of sentiment 
and purpose, aided by appeals to groundless fears 
for the safety of the Union, and by a disposition 
growing out of these fears and party alliances to 
submilto the tests imposed by the slaveholding sec- 
tions of each political party, that the slave States 
have " conquered." 

Mr. DAWSON. While tiie Senator is writing 
the history of the times, I trust he will do it cor- 
rectly. The South has never opposed any man 
because he was in favor of freedom. The South 
has selected between gentlemen, and those who 
were against interfering with the constitutional 
rishts of the South have always been supported 
by thera. They have never opposed any man on 
the ground merely that he was in favor of freedom. 
Not so. They are opposed to interference with 
their constitutional rights only; and the Senator is 



wrong to say that they opposed any one because 
he belongs to the free States, or is in favor of free- 
dom. 

Mr. CHASE. I shall always be ready to ac- 
cept any correction, from any Senator, of any 
erroneous statement I may make. But, sir, what 
is meant by the "constitutional rights of the 
South r" Who refuses to support " the constitu- 
tional rights of the South r" Nobody here, cer- 
tainly. But what are they ? Sir, when gentlemen 
from' the slave States ask us to support the Con- 
stitution, I fear they mean only their construction 
of the Constitution. Every concession which has 
ever been made to slavery, every concession now 
demanded, is claimed under this same plea of 
" constitutional rights." I will ask the Senator 
from Georgia whether he does not hold that it i.s 
the " constitutional right'' of every citizen of the 
slave States to take his slaves into the territories, 
and to be protected in holding them there by the 
laws of this Government? 
Mr. DAWSON. I do. 

Mr. CHASE. So I supposed. Such, also, 1 
understand to be the opinion of the Serator from 
: Alabama, [Mr. King,] whose abilities and virtues 
command such general respect. He holds, if I 
understand aright some recent remarks of his, that 
the General Government is bound by the Consti- 
tution to recognize and protect the rights of mas- 
ters in slaves to the same extent and in the same 
manner r.3 the rights of owners in any description 
of property whatever. I would inquire of the 
Senator if I understood him correctly? 

Mr. KING. I was not paying particular atten- 
tion to the Senator, and therefore do not precisely 
understand, even now, the question. I will en- 
deavor to answer it if he will repeat it. 

Mr. CHASE. I inquired of the Senator from 
' ■0€^fgiSriMir'D'tWff6'!^'Yw%6ini't','iu hits juuguieiVi, 
a citizen of a slave State, taking slaves with him 
and emigrating into the territories acquired from 
Mexico, would be entitled, under the Constitu- 
tion, to the recognition and protection of his claim 
of property in slaves by the legislation of this 
Government, precisely as he would be to the re- 
cognition and protection of his rights as owner of 
property of any description r The Senator replied 
' in the affirmative. I then added that 1 believed 
the Senator from Alabama entertained the same 
opinion, 
i Mr. KING. The opinion I entertain is this: 
'<'' that in every territory acquired by the United 
States, either by conquest or by purchase, every 
citizen of every State in the Union is entitled to 
participate. With regard to taking slaves there, 
they can be protected under any government that 
may be formed for the territories by the United 
States. The power to form such governments is 
supposed coexist under the Constitution. Whether 
i it does or not, such has been the practice and the 
; construction given to it. When a territorial gov- 
ernment is established, it is only for the protection 
i of persons and property and the preservation of 
; order, ana it has no power whatever to legislate 
for the destruction of property. That is my opin- 
ion. I believe that whenever a territorial govern- 
I ment is established, if persons holding slaves 
': think proper to go there with them, this Govern- 
' ment is bound to protect them until the period 
1; arrives when the population is sufficient for the 
I' formation of a State constitution. Then, we of 



23 




.i Souih hold, I believe without exception, that 
(je people thus forming a State constitution, have 

right to prohibit or to permit ■slavery at their 
^•leasure, and that Congress iia.s mo right to pre- 
f.-ent the new State from cominsfiiito the Union on 
/that ground, but can only look at its constitution 
to ascertain whether it is republican in its character. 
Am I understood ? 

Mr. CHASE. Fully. The doctrine of the 
Senator i.s precisely that of the Senator from 
Georgii. We understand now, from both sides 
of this Chamber, what is meant when we are called 
on to maintain " the constitutional rights of tlie 
South." So far as the matters now under di.scus- 
aion are concerned, it means that we must recog- 
nize and maintain by legislation the claim of cili- 
lens of the slave States to take slaves into the 
cerritorief; and hold them there, a.s property, under 
;:ationai government and territorial government, 
until the territory becomesaState, and then we are 
bound to admit the State into the Union with a con- 
.ititution establishing slavery, if such should be the 
constitution adopted. And no citizen who refuses 
;ms assen I to this doctrine; who believes that this 
Governmentofours cannot, under the Constitution, 
sustain any claim of property in slave.s beyond 



from endeavoring to agree in the support of the 
same candidate upon opposite grounds. Let us 
have political plaiform.s, which will have the same 
meaning in Georgia as in Maine, and candidale.s 
who cannot be represented in the North as ir^ favor 
of freedom, and in the South as supporters iif 
slavery. The policy of silence with reference to 
important measures and principles, and the poli'-y 
of ambiguous expressions, are ec|ualty obnoxioii.-*. 
Both mislead public judgment; and whether the 
party which adopts the former, or the party which 
adopts the latter, succeeds, one or the other 
section of the country must be disappointed. 

Mr. President, honesty is the best policy, jus- 
tice, the highest expediency; and principle, the 
oidy proper basis of union in a political organiza- 
tion. Holding fast as 1 do to Democratic jirinci- 
pies; believing firmly that all men are created 
equal, and are endowed by their Creator with in- 
alienable rights to life and liberty, I desire to s«e 
those principles carried out boldly, earnestly, res- 
olutely, in the practical administration of affairs. 
I wish to see the powers of this Government ex- 
ercised for the great objects which the Constitution 
i indicates; for the perfection of our Union; for the 
establishment of justice; for the common defence; 



State limits; who opposes, openly and decidedly, for the security of liberty. At the same time 1 do 
the extension of slavery into the territories, can 'not desire to sec this Govcrnnient, under the influ- 
receive the support of either political party in the ence of any zeal, however honorable, for freedom, 
.slave States. Both parties agree in establishing i transcend at all the sphere of its constitutional 
this test. Ii powers and duties. While, therefore, I shall 

Mr. BUTLER. I would ask the Senator if he ; steadily support ail proper legislation for the es- 
repudiates or adopts the doctrine laid down by Mr. , tablishment and .-ecurity of freedom in the territc- 
Webster in his celebrated letter to Lord Ashbur- , ries and elsewhere within the sphere of exclusive 
ton, in vi'hich he said that slave property in vessels | national juri.sdiction, I shall, as steadily, refuse my 
assimilated to that property in territories, and that ; support to all legislation on the subject of slavery 
:he Government was equally bound to protect it ? within the States. In this line of action I shall feel 

Mr. CHASE. I have already said, Mr. Presi- | myself supported by the precepts of the sages cf 
' '^"/,'^" "'"•' *" '^'l <'f'"f-ni' in that df^ctrine. : the revolutionary era, by the example of the found- 
Mr. DAWSON. The Senator has made an iTrTofThe'llepublic, by iiic origli. 



'Xposition of the mode and manner in which the 

►South vote. I wish to ask him if, with one or 

two exceptions, every southern State did not stand 

>•.■ Mr. Van Buren for the Presidency — the very 

andidate for whom the Senator voted at the last 

esidcatial election ? So that history is against 



Government, and by the principles of the Consti- 
tution. 

I cannot believe that there a danger in such a 
course. Least of all does the stale cry of disunion 
alarm me. Men, generally, adapt remedies to 
evils. But what evil that the slave States com- 



e position which the Senator occupies, and the i plain of v/ili disunion cure .' Will it establish sKi 



:^outh has only done that whicli tiie Senator hiui 
^-rlf ha/jdone. 

Mr. CHASE. " CircuListances,'" it is said, 
■alter cases." [Laughter.] 1 rather think thai 
.Mr. Van Buren, occupying the position and avow- 
■'g the sentiments he did in 1848, would not have 
een a very acceptable candidate to our southern 
■-.iends, however nominated. At any rate I be- 
.eve it so happened that he received not more 
• '.an five hundred votes, if so many, in all the slave 
-states. 

Mr. DAWSON. The jiarty had another can- 
^'•date. 

?4r. CHASE. And another pirttform. And, I 
?.m inclined to think, the objection of the slave 
states v/as quite as much to our platform as our 
candidate. 

Mr. President, disguise is vain. We cannot 
■>imt our eyes to the fact that the test I have referred 
;o is made. It is stamped upon every page of our 
political history for fifty years. Let the test be 
Inade, if getitlemen desire. I only say, for one, 
t'.'.at 1 will not submit to it. 

Let us understand each other. Let us cease 



very iii the territories .' Will it procure the return 
of fugitives .' Will it sunpreps discussion? Will 
it .secure slavery where it is : Sir, all men must 
see that disunion is no remedy for the slave State.-. 
Why then the cry, if not to alarm the timid, the 
sensitive, the unreflecting — to aftoid excuses for 
concession — and thus secure advantages which the 
sober judgment and enliglitcned (Conscience of the 
country would never yield.' 

Mr. President, I have never calculated the value 
of the Union, i know no arithmetic by which 
the computation can be made. We of the West 
are in the habit of looking upon the Union as we 
look upon the arch of heaven, without ;i thought 
that it can ever de.:ay or fall. With equal rever- 
ence we regard the jireat Ordinance of Freedom, 
under whose benign influence, within little more 
than half a century, a wilderness has been con- 
verted into an empire. Ohio, the eldest born of 
the Constitution and the Ordinance, cleaves and 
will cleave faithfully to both. And now that the 
time has come when vast accessions of free terri- 
tory demand the application of those principles of 
the Ordinance, to which she is indebte<l for her 



24 



prosperity and power, to guard them against the 
blighting influence of slavery, she will insist that 
the same protection shall be extended to the terri- 
tories which was extended to her. 

Nor are these the sentiments of Ohio alone. 
They are the sentiments of the people throughout 
the free States. Here and there the arts or the 
fears of politicians or capitalists may suppress 
their utterance; but they live, and will live, in the 
hearts of the masses. There is no great and real 
change in those opinions and convictions which 
placed a majority pledged to free soil in the other 
wing of the Capitol. It may be, however, that 
you will succeed here in sacrificing the claims of 



freedom by some settlement carried through thtl 
forms of legislation. But the people will «nt;ettle\ 
your settlement. It may be that you will deter-j 
mine that the territories shall not be secured by 
law against the ingress of slavery. The people 
will reverse your determination. It may be chat 
you will succeed in burying the Ordinance of 
Freedom. But the people will write upon its 
tomb, Resurgam;* and the same history which re- 
cords its resurrection may also inform posterity 
that they who fancied they had killed the proviso. 
only committed political suicide. 

* " I shall rise again. '• 



Printed a: the Congressional Globe Office. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 043 8 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 043 8 



